On March 2, 2010, the Secretary of Defense appointed the two of us to co-chair a working group to undertake a comprehensive review of the impacts of repeal, should it occur, of Section 654 of Title 10 of the United States Code, commonly known as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. In this effort, we were aided by a highly dedicated team of 49 military and 19 civilian personnel from across the Department of Defense and the Military Services. Our assignment from the Secretary was two-fold: 1) assess the impact of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness; and 2) recommend appropriate changes, if necessary, to existing regulations, policies, and guidance in the event of repeal. The Secretary directed us to deliver our assessment and recommendations to him by December 1, 2010.1 This document constitutes our report of that assessment and our recommendations. The Secretary also directed us to develop a plan of action to support implementation of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That plan accompanies this report. At the outset, it is important to note the environment in which we conducted our work: the Nation’s military has been at war on several fronts for over 9 years. Much is being demanded from the force. The men and women in uniform who risk their lives to defend our Nation are, along with their families, stretched and stressed, and have faced years of multiple and lengthy deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Some question the wisdom of taking on the emotional and difﬁcult issue of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on top of all else. For these and other reasons, the Secretary directed that we “thoroughly, objectively and methodically examine all aspects of this question,” and include, most importantly, the views of our men and women in uniform. Accordingly, over the last nine months we:
solicited the views of nearly 400,000 active duty and reserve component Service members with an extensive and professionally-developed survey, which prompted 115,052 responses—one of the largest surveys in the history of the U.S. military;

1 During the nine months we conducted our work, the legislative and legal landscape for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell changed considerably. In May, efforts in Congress to repeal 10 U.S.C. § 654 gained momentum, and a repeal provision was added to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011 in both the House and Senate. The amended NDAA passed the full House, but, as of this writing, has not been voted upon by the full Senate. Also, a federal district court in California declared the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law to be unconstitutional in September, and issued a worldwide injunction immediately prohibiting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell enforcement the following month. The decision and injunction were appealed by the Government, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction pending the appeal. As of this writing, the appeal before the Ninth Circuit is still pending. After careful consideration of these legislative and legal developments, we determined they did not alter our assignment in any way.

1

solicited the views of over 150,000 spouses of active duty and reserve component Service members, because of the inﬂuence and importance families play in the lives of Service members and their decisions to join, leave, or stay in the military, and received 44,266 responses; created an online inbox for Service members and their families to offer their views, through which we received a total of 72,384 entries; conducted 95 face-to-face “information exchange forums” at 51 bases and installations around the world, where we interacted with over 24,000 Service members—ranging from soldiers at Fort Hood, Fort Benning, and Fort Bragg, sailors at Norfolk, San Diego, and Pearl Harbor, airmen at Lackland, Langley, and Yokota in Japan, Marines at Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton, and Parris Island, cadets and midshipmen at our Service academies, and Coast Guardsmen on Staten Island, New York; conducted 140 smaller focus group sessions with Service members and their families; solicited the views of the Service academy superintendents and faculty, Service chiefs of chaplains, and Service surgeons general; solicited and received the views of various members of Congress; engaged RAND to update its 1993 study, Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy; solicited and received the views of foreign allies, veterans groups, and groups both for and against repeal of the current law and policy; and during a two-week period prior to issuance, solicited and received the comments of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force, and the Chiefs of each Service, on this report in draft form.

Finally, we heard the views and experiences of current and former Service members who are gay or lesbian. We knew that their viewpoints would be important, and we made afﬁrmative efforts to reach them, though our ability to do so under the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law was limited. The two of us personally interviewed former Service members who are gay or lesbian, including those who had been separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. To reach those currently in the military, we hired a private company to administer the survey of Service members and an interactive online conﬁdential communications mechanism. This company was obligated to protect the identity of Service members and did not reveal identifying information to the Working Group. Through the conﬁdential communications mechanism, the private company was able to engage a total of 2,691 Service members, 296 of whom self-identiﬁed as gay or lesbian, in interactive online conversations about their experiences.

2

Our Working Group also reviewed hundreds of relevant laws, regulations, and Department of Defense and Service policies and issuances (directives, instructions, and memoranda) and evaluated various policy options. As discussed in detail in section V, the breadth and depth of the Working Group’s work was extensive. To our knowledge, our nine-month review and engagement of the force was the largest and most comprehensive in the history of the U.S. military, on any personnel-related matter. Based on all we saw and heard, our assessment is that, when coupled with the prompt implementation of the recommendations we offer below, the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to overall military effectiveness is low. We conclude that, while a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will likely, in the short term, bring about some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention, we do not believe this disruption will be widespread or long-lasting, and can be adequately addressed by the recommendations we offer below. Longer term, with a continued and sustained commitment to core values of leadership, professionalism, and respect for all, we are convinced that the U.S. military can adjust and accommodate this change, just as it has others in history.2 Signiﬁcant to our assessment are the following: The results of the Service member survey reveal a widespread attitude among a solid majority of Service members that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will not have a negative impact on their ability to conduct their military mission.3 The survey was conducted by Westat, a research ﬁrm with a long track record of conducting surveys for the U.S. military. The survey was one of the largest in the history of the military. We heard from over 115,000 Service members, or 28% of those solicited. Given the large number of respondents, the margin of error for the results was less than ±1%, and the response rate was average for the U.S. military. The results of the survey are best represented by the answers to three questions:
When asked about how having a Service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay would affect the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,” 70% of Service members predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or no effect.4 When asked “in your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a co-worker that you believed to be homosexual,” 69% of Service members reported that they had.5

2 Our assessment is based on conditions we observe in today’s U.S. military. It is not meant as commentary on any point prior to today, over the past 17 years since the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law was enacted by Congress. Nothing in this report should be construed as doubt by us about the wisdom of enacting 10 U.S.C. § 654 in 1993, given circumstances that existed then. 3 See Section VII, “The Survey Results.” 4 See Appendix C, “Survey Responses: 2010 Department of Defense Survey of Service Members,” Question 68a. 5 See Appendix C, Question 36.

3

When asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with a co-worker who they believed was gay or lesbian, 92% stated that the unit’s “ability to work together” was “very good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor.”6

Consistently, the survey results revealed a large group of around 50–55% of Service members who thought that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would have mixed or no effect; another 15–20% who said repeal would have a positive effect; and about 30% who said it would have a negative effect.7 The results of the spouse survey are consistent. When spouses were asked about whether repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would affect their preference for their Service member’s future plans to stay in the military, 74% said repeal would have no effect, while only 12% said “I would want my spouse to leave earlier.”8 To be sure, these survey results reveal a signiﬁcant minority—around 30% overall (and 40–60% in the Marine Corps and in various combat arms specialties)—who predicted in some form and to some degree negative views or concerns about the impact of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Any personnel policy change for which a group that size predicts negative consequences must be approached with caution. However, there are a number of other factors that still lead us to conclude that the risk of repeal to overall military effectiveness is low. The reality is that there are gay men and lesbians already serving in today’s U.S. military, and most Service members recognize this. As stated before, 69% of the force recognizes that they have at some point served in a unit with a co-worker they believed to be gay or lesbian.9 Of those who have actually had this experience in their career, 92% stated that the unit’s “ability to work together” was “very good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor,” while only 8% stated it was “poor” or “very poor.”10 Anecdotally, we also heard a number of Service members tell us about a leader, co-worker, or fellow Service member they greatly liked, trusted, or admired, who they later learned was gay; and how once that person’s sexual orientation was revealed to them, it made little or no difference to the relationship.11 Both the survey results and our own engagement of the force convinced us that when Service members had the actual experience of serving with someone they believe to be gay, in general unit performance was not affected negatively by this added dimension. Yet, a frequent response among Service members at information exchange forums, when asked about the widespread recognition that gay men and lesbians are already in the military, were words to the effect of: “yes, but I don’t know they are gay.” Put another way, the concern with repeal among many is with “open” service.

In the course of our assessment, it became apparent to us that, aside from the moral and religious objections to homosexuality, much of the concern about “open” service is driven by misperceptions and stereotypes about what it would mean if gay Service members were allowed to be “open” about their sexual orientation. Repeatedly, we heard Service members express the view that “open” homosexuality would lead to widespread and overt displays of effeminacy among men, homosexual promiscuity, harassment and unwelcome advances within units, invasions of personal privacy, and an overall erosion of standards of conduct, unit cohesion, and morality. Based on our review, however, we conclude that these concerns about gay and lesbian Service members who are permitted to be “open” about their sexual orientation are exaggerated, and not consistent with the reported experiences of many Service members. In today’s civilian society, where there is no law that requires gay men and lesbians to conceal their sexual orientation in order to keep their job, most gay men and lesbians still tend to be discrete about their personal lives, and guarded about the people with whom they share information about their sexual orientation. We believe that, in the military environment, this would be true even more so. According to a survey conducted by RAND of a limited number of individuals who anonymously self-identiﬁed as gay and lesbian Service members, even if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed, only 15% of gay and lesbian Service members would like to have their sexual orientation known to everyone in their unit.12 This conclusion is also consistent with what we heard from gay Service members in the course of this review: “Personally, I don’t feel that this is something I should have to ‘disclose.’ Straight people don’t have to disclose their orientation. I will just be me. I will bring my family to family events. I will put family pictures on my desk. I am not going to go up to people and say, hi there—I’m gay.”13 “I think a lot of people think there is going to be this big ‘outing’ and people ﬂaunting their gayness, but they forget that we’re in the military. That stuff isn’t supposed to be done during duty hours regardless if you’re gay or straight.”14 If gay and lesbian Service members in today’s U.S. military were permitted to make reference to their sexual orientation, while subject to the same standards of conduct as all other Service members, we assess that most would continue to be private and discreet about their personal lives. This discretion would occur for reasons having nothing to do with law, but everything to do with a desire to ﬁt in, co-exist, and succeed in the military environment.

As one gay Service member stated: “I don’t think it’s going to be such a big, huge, horrible thing that DoD is telling everyone it’s going to be. If it is repealed, everyone will look around their spaces to see if anyone speaks up. They’ll hear crickets for a while. A few ﬂamboyant guys and tough girls will join to rock the boat and make a scene. Their actions and bad choices will probably get them kicked out. After a little time has gone by, then a few of us will speak up. And instead of a deluge of panic and violence…there’ll be ripple on the water’s surface that dissipates quicker than you can watch.”15 In communications with gay and lesbian current and former Service members, we repeatedly heard a patriotic desire to serve and defend the Nation, subject to the same rules as everyone else. In the words of one gay Service member, repeal would simply “take a knife out of my back....You have no idea what it is like to have to serve in silence.”16 Most said they did not desire special treatment, to use the military for social experimentation, or to advance a social agenda. Some of those separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would welcome the opportunity to rejoin the military if permitted. From them, we heard expressed many of the same values that we heard over and over again from Service members at large—love of country, honor, respect, integrity, and service over self. We simply cannot square the reality of these people with the perceptions about “open” service. Given that we are in a time of war, the combat arms communities across all Services required special focus and analysis. Though the survey results demonstrate a solid majority of the overall U.S. military who predict mixed, positive or no effect in the event of repeal, these percentages are lower, and the percentage of those who predict negative effects are higher, in combat arms units. For example, in response to question 68a, while the percentage of the overall U.S. military that predicts negative or very negative effects on their unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done” is 30%, the percentage is 43% for the Marine Corps, 48% within Army combat arms units, and 58% within Marine combat arms units.17 However, while a higher percentage of Service members in warﬁghting units predict negative effects of repeal, the percentage distinctions between warﬁghting units and the entire military are almost non-existent when asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with someone believed to be gay. For example, when those in the overall military were asked about the experience of working with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian, 92% stated that their unit’s “ability to work together,” was “very good, “good” or “neither good nor poor.”18 Meanwhile, in response to the same question, the percentage is 89% for those in Army combat arms units and 84% for those in Marine combat arms units—all very high percentages.19 Anecdotally, we heard much the same. As one special operations force warﬁghter told us, “We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.”20
15 Service member, Conﬁdential Communication Mechanism, 2010. 16 Service member, Conﬁdential Communication Mechanism, 2010. 17 Westat, Support to the DoD Comprehensive Review Working Group Analyzing the Impact of Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” vol. 1, Rockville, MD, November 19, 2010, Appendices J and L, Question 68a. 18 See Appendix C, Question 47a. 19 Westat, vol. 1 Appendices J and L, Question 47a. 20 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

6

Thus, the survey results reﬂecting actual experience, our other engagements, and the lessons of history lead us to conclude that the risks of repeal within warﬁghting units, while higher than the force generally, remain within acceptable levels when coupled with our recommendations for implementation. The survey results also reveal, within warﬁghting units, negative predictions about serving alongside gays decrease when in “intense combat situations.” In response to question 71a, for example, 67% of those in Marine combat arms units predict working alongside a gay man or lesbian will have a negative effect on their unit’s effectiveness in completing its mission “in a ﬁeld environment or out at sea.” By contrast, in response to the same question, but during “an intense combat situation,” the percentage drops to 48%.21 See section VII. While 48% indicates a signiﬁcant level of concern, the near 20-point difference in these two environments reﬂects that, in a combat situation, the warﬁghter appreciates that differences with those within his unit become less important than defeating the common enemy. Our assessment also took account of the fact that the Nation is at war on several fronts, and, for a period of over nine years, the U.S. military has been fully engaged, and has faced the stress and demands of frequent and lengthy deployments. We conclude that repeal can be implemented now, provided it is done in manner that minimizes the burden on leaders in deployed areas. Our recommended implementation plan does just that, and it is discussed more fully in section XIII of this report and in the accompanying support plan for implementation. The primary concern is for the added requirement that will be created by the training and education associated with repeal. We are cognizant of this concern, but note that during this time of war, the Services have undertaken education and training in deployed areas on a number of important personnel matters. These education and training initiatives have included increased emphasis on sexual assault prevention and response, suicide prevention, and training to detect indications of behavioral health problems. The conduct of these programs in deployed areas indicates that training and education associated with a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell can be accommodated. We assess this to be the case, in large part because our recommendations in this report involve a minimalist approach to changes in policies, and education and training to reiterate existing policies in a sexual orientation-neutral manner. It is also the case that the results of the survey indicate that, in this war-time environment, a solid majority of Service members believe that repeal will have positive, mixed, or no effect. Most of those surveyed joined our military after September 11, 2001, and have known nothing but a military at war. Our assessment here is also informed by the lessons of history in this country. Though there are fundamental differences between matters of race, gender, and sexual orientation, we believe the U.S. military’s prior experiences with racial and gender integration are relevant. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, our military took on the racial integration of its ranks, before the country at large had done so. Our military then was many times larger than it is today, had just returned from World War II, and was in the midst of Cold War tensions and the
21 Westat, vol. 1 Appendices J and L, Questions 71a and 71c.

7

Korean War. By our assessment, the resistance to change at that time was far more intense: surveys of the military revealed opposition to racial integration of the Services at levels as high as 80–90%.22 Some of our best-known and most-revered military leaders from the World War II-era voiced opposition to the integration of blacks into the military, making strikingly similar predictions of the negative impact on unit cohesion. But by 1953, 95% of all African-American soldiers were serving in racially integrated units, while public buses in Montgomery, Alabama and other cities were still racially segregated.23 Today, the U.S. military is probably the most racially diverse and integrated institution in the country—one in which an African American rose through the ranks to become the senior-most military ofﬁcer in the country 20 years before Barack Obama was elected President. The story is similar when it came to the integration of women into the military. In 1948, women were limited to 2% of active duty personnel in each Service,24 with signiﬁcant limitations on the roles they could perform. Currently, women make up 14% of the force,25 and are permitted to serve in 92% of the occupational specialties.26 Along the way to gender integration, many of our Nation’s military leaders predicted dire consequences for unit cohesion and military effectiveness if women were allowed to serve in large numbers. As with racial integration, this experience has not always been smooth. But, the consensus is the same: the introduction and integration of women into the force has made our military stronger. The general lesson we take from these transformational experiences in history is that in matters of personnel change within the military, predictions and surveys tend to overestimate negative consequences, and underestimate the U.S. military’s ability to adapt and incorporate within its ranks the diversity that is reﬂective of American society at large. Our conclusions are also informed by the experiences of our foreign allies. To be sure, there is no perfect comparator to the U.S. military, and the cultures and attitudes toward homosexuality vary greatly among nations of the world. However, in recent times a number of other countries have transitioned to policies that permit open military service by gay men and lesbians. These include the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, and Israel. Signiﬁcantly, prior to change, surveys of the militaries in Canada and the U.K. indicated much higher levels of resistance than our own survey results—as high as 65% for some areas27— but the actual implementation of change in those countries went much more smoothly than expected, with little or no disruption.

22 Erin R. Mahan, Ofﬁce of the Secretary of Defense, Racial and Gender Intergration of the Armed Forces, August 9, 2010, 5–6. 23 Matthew Cashdollar, “Not Yes or No, But What If: Implications of Open Homosexuality in the Military,” in Attitudes Aren’t Free: Thinking Deeply About Diversity in the US Armed Forces, ed. James Parco and David Levy (Maxwell Air Force Base: Air University Press, 2010), 169. 24 Judith Bellafaire, “America’s Military Women—The Journey Continues,” accessed November 19, 2010, http://www. womensmemorial.org/Education/WHM982.html. 25 Defense Manpower Data Center, Female Representation in the Active Component - 1980, 1987, & 1990–2009, Excel spreadsheet. 26 OUSD(P&R), e-mail communication to CRWG, November 12, 2010. 27 United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, Report of the Homosexuality Policy Assessment Team (United Kingdom: February 1996); G2-8 and Franklin C. Pinch, Perspective on Organization Change in Canadian Forces, January 1994, 22.

8

Likewise, the experience of various municipal and federal agencies is somewhat relevant. These agencies include the CIA, FBI, USAID, and the State Department, who at present have personnel who live and work alongside U.S. military personnel in deployed areas. Reportedly, in those agencies the integration of gay and lesbian personnel did not negatively affect institutional or individual job performance. Finally, our overall assessment is itself based on a risk assessment conducted by a panel of military and DoD career civilian personnel drawn from across the Services, and included those in combat arms specialties. The panel utilized a standard military decision support process recommended by the J–8 directorate of the Joint Staff. This same process has been used by the Department of Defense to support recent decisions about the new Cyber Command location and authority, and the Afghanistan National Security Force size and mix. Upon reviewing the survey results and other information gathered by the Working Group, the panel members utilized their own professional judgment to assess the risk of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to military readiness, unit effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness. The results of that exercise are detailed in section XI. Informed by the panel’s determinations, as the co-chairs of the Working Group the two of us then assessed the risk of repeal to overall “military effectiveness” as low. Figure 1 depicts the panel’s ratings, plus our own assessment of risk to overall military effectiveness.

Figure 1. Assessment of Impact of a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

After Mitigation Assessment
Low Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

High Risk 8 9 10

Military Effectiveness
Military Readiness
2.5

Unit Effectiveness
2.6

Unit Cohesion
2.6

Family 1.5 Readiness

Equipment

Deployed
2.5

Garrison
2.8

Task Cohesion
2.2

Social Cohesion
4.6

Relocation
1.4

Personnel Readiness

Garrison
1.9

Deployability
2.0

Retention
3.3

Recruiting
1.2

Deployed
1.4

Officer
3.8

Officer
0.6

Enlisted
2.9

Enlisted
1.5

FOUO: Pre-decisional // ASSESS

9

In sum, we are convinced the U.S. military can make this change, even during this time of war. However, this assessment is accompanied by, and depends upon, the recommendations provided in section XIII of this report. Motivating many of our recommendations is the conclusion, based on our numerous engagements with the force, that repeal would work best if it is accompanied by a message and policies that promote fair and equal treatment of all Service members, minimize differences among Service members based on sexual orientation, and disabuse Service members of any notion that, with repeal, gay and lesbian Service members will be afforded some type of special treatment. Included, also, should be a message to those who are opposed to “open” service on well-founded moral or religious grounds, that their views and beliefs are not rejected, and that leaders have not turned their backs on them. In the event of repeal, we cannot and should not expect individual Service members to change their personal religious or moral beliefs about homosexuality, but we do expect every Service member to treat all others with dignity and respect, consistent with the core values that already exist in each Service. These are not new concepts for the U.S. military, given the wide variety of views, races, and religions that already exist within the force. Our most signiﬁcant recommendations are as follows: Leadership, Training, and Education. Successful implementation of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will depend upon strong leadership, a clear message, and proactive education. Throughout our review, we heard from a number of senior ofﬁcers and senior enlisted leaders in all the Services words to the effect of “If the law changes, we can do this; just give us the tools to communicate a clear message.” This will require us to equip commanders in the ﬁeld with the education and training tools to educate the force on what is expected of them in a post repeal environment. In our support plan accompanying this report, we set forth this key implementation message for repeal:
Leadership. The clear message from the Working Group’s assessment is “leadership matters most.” Leaders at all levels of the chain of command set the example for members in the unit and must be fully committed to DoD policy to sustain unit effectiveness, readiness, and cohesion. Professionalism. Leaders must emphasize Service members’ fundamental professional obligations and the oath to support and defend the Constitution that is at the core of their military service. In the profession of arms, adherence to military policy and standards of conduct is essential to unit effectiveness, readiness, and cohesion. Respect. Unit strength depends on the strength of each member. We achieve that strength by treating each member with respect.

10

In our view, the starting point for this message should be a written communication from the leaders of the Department of Defense, including the Secretary of Defense and senior military leaders of each Service, that deliver their expectations in clear and forceful terms. Standards of Conduct. Throughout our engagement with the force, we heard many concerns expressed by Service members about possible inappropriate conduct that might take place in the event of repeal, including unprofessional relationships between Service members; public displays of affection; inappropriate dress and appearance; and acts of violence, harassment, and disrespect. Many of these concerns were about conduct that is already regulated in the military environment, regardless of the sexual orientation of the persons involved, or whether it involves persons of the same sex or the opposite sex. For instance, military standards of conduct—as reﬂected in the Uniform Code for Military Justice, Service regulations and policies, and unwritten Service customs and traditions—already prohibit fraternization and unprofessional relationships. They also address various forms of harassment and unprofessional behavior, prescribe appropriate dress and appearance, and provide guidelines on public displays of affection. We believe that it is not necessary to establish an extensive set of new or revised standards of conduct in the event of repeal. Concerns for standards in the event of repeal can be adequately addressed through training and education about how already existing standards of conduct continue to apply to all Service members, regardless of sexual orientation, in a post-repeal environment. We do recommend, however, that the Department of Defense issue guidance that all standards of conduct apply uniformly, without regard to sexual orientation. We also recommend that the Department of Defense direct the Services to review their current standards to ensure that they are sexual-orientation neutral and that they provide adequate guidance to the extent each Service considers appropriate on unprofessional relationships, harassment, public displays of affection, and dress and appearance. Part of the education process should include a reminder to commanders about the tools they already have in hand to punish and remedy inappropriate conduct that may arise in a post-repeal environment. As a related matter, to address tensions and incidents that may arise between individual Service members in a post-repeal environment, including the Service member who simply refuses to serve alongside a gay person, commanders should be reminded of the enormous latitude and discretion they have, for the sake of unit cohesion, to address any situation concerning Service members who are intolerant or intractable in their behavior toward one another. Moral and Religious Concerns. In the course of our review, we heard a large number of Service members raise religious and moral objections to homosexuality or to serving alongside someone who is gay. Some feared repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell might limit their individual freedom of expression and free exercise of religion, or require them to change their

11

personal beliefs about the morality of homosexuality. The views expressed to us in these terms cannot be downplayed or dismissed. Special attention should also be given to address the concerns of our community of 3,000 military chaplains. Some of the most intense and sharpest divergence of views about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell exists among the chaplain corps. A large number of military chaplains (and their followers) believe that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination, and that they are required by God to condemn it as such. However, the reality is that in today’s U.S. military, people of sharply different moral values and religious convictions—including those who believe that abortion is murder and those who do not, and those who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and those who do not—and those who have no religious convictions at all, already co-exist, work, live, and ﬁght together on a daily basis. The other reality is that policies regarding Service members’ individual expression and free exercise of religion already exist, and we believe they are adequate. Service members will not be required to change their personal views and religious beliefs; they must, however, continue to respect and serve with others who hold different views and beliefs. Within the chaplain community, the solution to this issue can be found in the existing guidance developed by and for our chaplains, which we believe should be reiterated as part of any education and training concerning repeal. Those regulations strike an appropriate balance between protecting a chaplain’s First Amendment freedoms and a chaplain’s duty to care for all. Existing regulations state that chaplains “will not be required to perform a religious role...in worship services, command ceremonies, or other events, if doing so would be in variance with the tenets or practices of their faith.”28 At the same time, regulations state that “Chaplains care for all Service members, including those who claim no religious faith, facilitate the religious requirements of personnel of all faiths, provide faith-speciﬁc ministries, and advise the command.”29 Privacy and Cohabitation. In the course of our review we heard from a very large number of Service members about their discomfort with sharing bathroom facilities or living quarters with those they know to be gay or lesbian. Some went so far to suggest that a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell may even require separate bathroom and shower facilities for gay men and lesbians. We disagree, and recommend against separate facilities. Though many regard the very discussion of this topic as offensive, given the number of Service members who raised it, we are obliged to address it. The creation of a third and possibly fourth category of bathroom facilities and living quarters, whether at bases or forward deployed areas, would be a logistical nightmare, expensive, and impossible to administer. And, even if it could be achieved and administered, separate facilities would, in our view, stigmatize gay and lesbian Service members in a manner reminiscent of “separate but equal” facilities for blacks prior to the 1960s. Accordingly,
28 Department of the Army, AR 165-1, Army Chaplain Corps Activities, December 3, 2009, 12. 29 Department of the Navy, SECNAVINST 1730.7D, Religious Ministry within the Department of the Navy, August 8, 2008, 5.

12

we recommend that the Department of Defense expressly prohibit berthing or billeting assignments or the designation of bathroom facilities based on sexual orientation. At the same time, commanders would retain the authority they currently have to alter berthing or billeting assignments or accommodate privacy concerns on an individualized, case-by-case basis, in the interests of morale, good order and discipline, and consistent with performance of mission.30 It should also be recognized that commanders already have the tools—from counseling, to non-judicial punishment, to UCMJ prosecution—to deal with misbehavior in either living quarters or showers, whether the person who engages in the misconduct is gay or straight. Most concerns we heard about showers and bathrooms were based on stereotype— that gay men and lesbians will behave as predators in these situations, or that permitting homosexual and heterosexual people of the same sex to shower together is tantamount to allowing men and women to shower together. However, common sense tells us that a situation in which people of different anatomy shower together is different from a situation in which people of the same anatomy but different sexual orientations shower together. The former is uncommon and unacceptable to almost everyone in this country; the latter is a situation most in the military have already experienced. Indeed, the survey results indicate 50% of Service members recognize they have already had the experience of sharing bathroom facilities with someone they believed to be gay.31 This is also a situation resembling what now exists in hundreds of thousands of college dorms, college and high school gyms, professional sports locker rooms, police and ﬁre stations, and athletic clubs around the nation. And, as one gay former Service member told us, to ﬁt in, co-exist, and conform to social norms, gay men have learned to avoid making heterosexuals feel uncomfortable or threatened in these situations.32 Equal Opportunity. We recommend that, in a post-repeal environment, gay and lesbian Service members be treated under the same general principles of military equal opportunity policy that apply to all Service members. Under the Military Equal Opportunity program, it is DoD policy to “[p]romote an environment free from personal, social, or institutional barriers that prevent Service members from rising to the highest level or responsibility possible. Service members shall be evaluated only on individual merit, ﬁtness, and capability.”33 This policy goes hand-in-hand with Service-level policies and basic military values that call for treating every military member with dignity and respect. We do not recommend that sexual orientation be placed alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, as a class eligible for various diversity programs, tracking initiatives, and complaint resolution processes under the Military Equal Opportunity Program. We
30 Each Service has directives on command authority, for example: Department of the Air Force, AFI 51-604, Assumption of Command, April 4, 2006; Department of the Army, AR 600-20, Army Command Policy, April 27, 2010. 31 See Appendix C, Question 87. 32 Retired Service member, communication to CRWG Co-Chair, May 10, 2010. 33 Department of Defense, DoDD 1350.2, Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Program, August 18, 1995, 2–3; Department of Defense, DoDD 1020.2, Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity (EO) in the Department of Defense, February 5, 2009, 4.

13

believe that doing so could produce a sense, rightly or wrongly, that gay men and lesbians are being elevated to a special status as a “protected class” and will receive special treatment. In a new environment in which gay and lesbian Service members can be open about their sexual orientation, we believe they will be accepted more readily if the military community understands that they are simply being permitted equal footing with everyone else. In the event of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Department of Defense should make clear that sexual orientation may not, in and of itself, be a factor in accession, promotion, or other personnel decision-making. Gay and lesbian Service members, like all Service members, would be evaluated only on individual merit, ﬁtness, and capability. Likewise, the Department of Defense should make clear that harassment or abuse based on sexual orientation is unacceptable and that all Service members are to treat one another with dignity and respect regardless of sexual orientation. Complaints regarding discrimination, harassment, or abuse based on sexual orientation can be dealt with through existing mechanisms—primarily the chain of command—available for complaints not involving race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Benefits. As part of this review, we considered appropriate changes, in the event of repeal, to beneﬁts to be accorded to same-sex partners and families of gay Service members. This issue is itself large and complex, and implicates the ongoing national political and legal debate regarding same-sex relationships. Members of the U.S. military are eligible for and receive a wide array of beneﬁts and support resources, both for themselves and their families. A reality is that, given current law, particularly the Defense of Marriage Act, there are a number of those beneﬁts that cannot legally be extended to gay and lesbian Service members and their same-sex partners, even if they are lawfully married in a state that permits same-sex marriage. An example of this is the Basic Allowance for Housing at the “with-dependent rate.” The “with-dependent” rate is limited by statute to Service members with “dependents.”34 The word “dependent” is also deﬁned by statute and is limited to the Service member’s “spouse” or dependent parents, unmarried children, or certain others under the age of 23 who are placed in the legal custody of the Service member.35 And, the Defense of Marriage Act limits the deﬁnition of the word “spouse” to mean “only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.”36 However, there are some beneﬁts that are now, under current law and regulations, fully available to anyone of a Service member’s choosing, including a same-sex partner, because they are “member-designated” beneﬁts. Examples here are beneﬁciaries for Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance and Thrift Savings Plan, missing member notiﬁcation, and hospital visitation access. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, Service members may designate a same-sex partner for these beneﬁts without then having to conceal the nature of the relationship from the military. In the event of repeal, the Department of Defense and
34 37 U.S.C. § 401. 35 37 U.S.C. § 401. 36 1 U.S.C. § 7.

14

the Services should inform Service members about these types of beneﬁts so that they can take advantage of them for their committed same-sex partners should they desire to do so. A third category of beneﬁts are those that are not statutorily prohibited, but that current regulations do not extend to same-sex partners. With regard to this category, the Department of Defense and the Services have the regulatory ﬂexibility to revise and redeﬁne the eligible beneﬁciaries to include same-sex partners. Here, we recommend that, where justiﬁed from a policy, ﬁscal, and feasibility standpoint, the beneﬁt be refashioned to become a member-designated one—in other words, to give the Service member, gay or straight, the discretion to designate whomever he or she wants as beneﬁciary. An example of a beneﬁt in this category is the provision of free legal services by a military legal assistance ofﬁce, and it may be suitable for this member-designated approach. Military family housing is another prominent beneﬁt in this category. However, we do not recommend at this time that military family housing be included in the beneﬁts eligible for this member-designated approach. Permitting a Service member to qualify for military family housing, simply by designating whomever he or she chooses as a “dependent,” is problematic. Military family housing is a limited resource and complicated to administer, and a system of member designation would create occasions for abuse and unfairness.37 Also, we are not, at this time, recommending that the Department of Defense or the Services revise their regulations to speciﬁcally add same-sex committed relationships to the deﬁnition of “dependent,” “family members,” or other similar terms in those regulations, for purposes of extending beneﬁts eligibility. We are convinced that, to create an environment in which gay and lesbian Service members can win quick and easy acceptance within the military community, repeal must be understood as an effort to achieve equal treatment for all. If, simultaneous with repeal, the Department of Defense creates a new category of unmarried dependent or family member reserved only for same-sex relationships, the Department of Defense itself would be creating a new inequity—between unmarried, committed same-sex couples and unmarried, committed opposite-sex couples. This new inequity, or the perception of it, runs counter to the military ethic of fair and equal treatment, and resentment at perceived inequities runs deep in military families. We recommend that the particular issue of a “qualifying relationship” status for couples not in a Federally-recognized marriage be revisited as part of a follow-on review of the implementation of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. This will permit the Department of Defense to revisit and reassess the issue as implementation of repeal is underway. It is also in recognition that the national debate on same-sex marriage and partner beneﬁts is ongoing, and that the judicial and legislative landscape on this issue is in a state of ﬂux.

37

Current Service policies state that non-dependents are not allowed to reside in military family housing. We do not recommend any changes to those policies, other than to state that any exception to policy to allow a non-dependent to reside in military family housing, be administered without regard to sexual orientation.

15

Re-accession. In the event of repeal, we recommend that Service members who have been previously separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell be permitted to apply for reentry into the military, pursuant to the same criteria as others who seek reentry. The fact that their separation was for homosexual conduct would not be considered as part of the Service member’s application for re-accession. For example, a Service member separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell who received an honorable discharge would be evaluated for re-accession under the same criteria that other Service members who had received honorable discharges would be. Further, consistent with the practice for other Service members who apply for re-accession, we recommend that the Service member who applies for re-accession after having been separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell not be given any type of credit for the time out of service, subject to any actions a board for the correction of military records may, in its discretion, take. UCMJ. We support the pre-existing proposals to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and remove private consensual sodomy between adults as a criminal offense. This change in law is warranted irrespective of whether Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, to resolve any constitutional concerns about the provision in light of Lawrence v. Texas38 and United States v. Marcum.39 We also support revising offenses involving sexual conduct or inappropriate relationships to ensure sexual orientation neutral application, consistent with the recommendations of this report. For example, the offense of adultery deﬁned in the Manual for Courts-Martial should be revised to apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual sex that is engaged in by or with a married person. Follow-on Review. Finally, we recommend that one year after any repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has been in effect, the Department of Defense conduct a follow-on review to monitor the implementation of repeal and to determine the adequacy of the recommended actions that are adopted. This should include a reassessment of the same-sex partner beneﬁts issues referred to earlier.

We are conﬁdent in the assessment and recommendations summarized above and detailed in the pages that follow. As stated before, this may have been the most comprehensive and inclusive personnel-related review in the history of the U.S. military. We both personally spent many long hours on this project. Our work was supported by a team of highly-dedicated civilian and military personnel, many of whom are experts in the area of military personnel matters. Two ﬁnal points should be made about our mission. In the course of our review, many asked us if the stated positions of the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in support of repeal in some way inﬂuenced, prejudiced, or constrained our review and assessment. This was not the case. The views expressed by
38 539 US 558 (2003). 39 60 M.J. 198 (C.A.A.F. 2004).

16

Service members and their families in information exchange forums and other engagements were civil and professional, but always frank and diverse and reﬂected strongly held views both for and against changing the law and policy, without regard to the views expressed by our national leaders. Next, our mandate was to assess the impact of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and how best to implement repeal should it occur; we were not asked to determine whether the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy should be repealed. However, our engagement of the force was wide-ranging enough that we did answer the question of whether the U.S. military can implement repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. To be clear, the Service member survey did not ask the broad question whether Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. This would, in effect, have been a referendum, and it is not the Department of Defense’s practice to make military policy decisions by a referendum of Service members. But, among the 103 questions in the Service member survey and the 44 questions in the spouse survey were numerous opportunities to express, in one way or another, support for or opposition to repeal of the current policy. Among the 72,000 online inbox submissions were numerous expressions both for and against the current policy. If the impact of repeal was predominately negative, that would have revealed itself in the course of our review. Further, as co-chairs, we believe we are both personally required to report our honest and candid assessments to the Secretary—either as the solemn duty of a military ofﬁcer to his civilian leadership, or because of the ﬁduciary obligation a lawyer owes his client. Thus, if our assessment was that the risk to military effectiveness of implementing repeal was unacceptable, we both would have been obligated to report that to the Secretary. We are both convinced that our military can do this, even during this time of war. We do not underestimate the challenges in implementing a change in the law, but neither should we underestimate the ability of our extraordinarily dedicated Service men and women to adapt to such change and continue to provide our Nation with the military capability to accomplish any mission.

Carter F. Ham General, United States Army

Jeh Charles Johnson General Counsel, Department of Defense

17

18

II

BACKGROUND

Law and Regulations
Section 654 of Title 10 of the United States Code, commonly known as the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law, was enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993, following a protracted and high-proﬁle political debate through much of that year concerning homosexuality in the U.S. military.40 The law, formally titled “Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces,” states that a member of the armed forces “shall be separated from the armed forces” if it is found that he or she: 1. “has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts,” unless the member demonstrates, among other things, that “such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior” and “under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur”; 2. “has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect,” unless the member demonstrates that “he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts”; or 3. “has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.” This law is implemented by the Department of Defense through DoD Instruction 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separations;41 DoD Instruction 1332.30, Ofﬁcer Separations;42 and DoD Instruction 1304.26, Qualiﬁcation Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction.43

40

The historical account in this Law and Regulations subsection is drawn in large part from the 1993 study by RAND and its 2010 update. (RAND, Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment, Santa Monica, CA: National Defense Research Institution, 1993; RAND, 2010.) 41 Department of Defense, DoDD 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separations, December 21, 1993. 42 Department of Defense, DoDD 1332.30, Separation of Regular Commissioned Ofﬁcers, December 21, 1993. 43 Department of Defense, DoDD 1304.26, Qualiﬁcation Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction, December 21, 1993.

19

In short, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy set forth three forms of homosexual conduct that require separation of a Service member: acts, statements, or marriage. The phrase “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” comes from two aspects of the law and policy. First, under DoD policy, sexual orientation is considered to be a “a personal and private matter” and Service members and military recruits are not asked to reveal their sexual orientation (“Don’t Ask”). Second, under both the law and policy, a statement by a Service member that he or she is gay is—in addition to homosexual acts and marriage—grounds for separation (“Don’t Tell”). Prior to 1993, there was no Congressional statute that expressly regulated homosexuality in the U.S. military; homosexuality in the military was regulated and restricted through a combination of sodomy prohibitions in military law and military personnel regulations. These restrictions were not formalized until the early 20th century. The ﬁrst such provision was Article 93 of the Articles of War, enacted in 1917, which prohibited sodomy.44 Throughout the World War I and II periods, Article 93 was the principal vehicle by which the military discharged homosexual men and women from service. After World War II, in October 1949, the Department of Defense issued a memorandum that standardized policy across Services. This policy stated that “homosexual personnel, irrespective of sex, should not be permitted to serve in any branch of the Armed Services in any capacity, and prompt separation of known homosexuals from the Armed Forces be made mandatory.”45 That memorandum was followed in 1953 by Executive Order 10450, which declared “sexual perversion” to be cause for dismissal from Federal jobs46 and resulted in a signiﬁcant increase in the annual number of discharges for homosexuality relative to the size of the force.47 In 1959, the Department of Defense issued Directive 1332.14, Administrative Discharges, that listed homosexual acts and sodomy as “sexual perversion” and, therefore, reason for discharge from military service.48 The language of the directive was later altered in 1975 to describe “homosexual acts or other aberrant sexual tendencies” as grounds for dismissal.49 Inconsistent application of this policy among the Services led, in 1981, to the issuance of a new memorandum by Deputy Secretary of Defense W. Graham Claytor, Jr. which made discharge mandatory for openly gay or lesbian personnel, and minimizing opportunities for retention.50 Among the rationales for the policy of mandatory separation was to provide the Department of Defense with the most legal protection against lawsuits ﬁled by Service members discharged for homosexuality. Subsequently, the revised directives stated that
44 45 46 47 48 49 50 RAND, 1993, 4. RAND, 1993, 6; RAND, 2010, 37–39. RAND, 1993, 6; RAND, 2010, 37–39. RAND, 1993, 6–7; RAND, 2010, 37–39. RAND, 1993, 7; RAND, 2010, 37–39. RAND, 1993, 7; RAND, 2010, 37–39. Deputy Secretary of Defense, Memorandum regarding homosexuality and military service, January 16, 1981; DoDD 1332.14; DoDD 1332.30.

20

homosexuality is “incompatible with military service,” as the presence of homosexual personnel would “seriously [impair] the accomplishment of the military mission.”51 This marks a shift in the justiﬁcation used for the discharge of gay and lesbian Service member from one based on physical or mental unﬁtness to serve to one based on negative impacts on mission accomplishment. Under the 1982 directive the following were grounds for separation: 1) a statement that one was gay; 2) engaging or attempting to engage in homosexual acts; 3) marriage to a person of the same-sex. These are the same three basic elements for separation under today’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy. On January 29, 1993, President Clinton directed Secretary of Defense Les Aspin to develop a draft executive order that would end discrimination due to sexual orientation in determining who may serve in the U. S. military. On April 5, 1993, Secretary Aspin formed a Military Working Group to develop and assess policy options to meet the President’s requirement.52 The Military Working Group was composed of a general or ﬂag ofﬁcer from each Service and a support staff of approximately 50 ofﬁcers, enlisted personnel, and civilian employees. The Military Working Group met with Service members as well as with civilian experts on the military; it also examined the experiences of foreign militaries, reviewed available research reports, and military separations data from the Services.53 The 1993 Military Working Group concluded that homosexuality remained inconsistent with military service, and that the presence in the military of individuals identiﬁed as homosexuals would have a signiﬁcantly adverse effect on both the readiness of the force and unit cohesion.54 In parallel with the Military Working Group’s study, the Department of Defense contracted RAND to conduct a separate study on the topic to provide “information and analysis required to structure the issues and…[develop] an analytic framework to evaluation a range of implementation alternatives.” RAND collected historical information on racial and gender integration in the U.S. military, identiﬁed and interviewed civilian and military personnel from foreign nations that accepted gays and lesbians into military service or anticipated doing so, collected information on public safety organizations within the United States regarding their acceptance of gays and lesbians into their ranks, examined the academic research from social and behavioral science regarding the issue, and analyzed the then-current policy and possible alternatives. RAND’s report concluded that sexual orientation, by itself, was “not germane” to military service and recommended clear standards of conduct for all military personnel, to be equally and strictly enforced, in order to maintain the military discipline necessary for effective operations. RAND recommended a military policy that focused on

actual conduct, not behavior presumed because of sexual orientation, and that the military hold all Service members to the same standard of conduct.55 Meanwhile, President Clinton’s directive and the studies undertaken by the Military Working Group and RAND sparked a political debate and congressional interest in the subject of homosexuality in the military. The Senate and House Armed Services Committees held hearings on the subject, and called to testify a number of active duty and retired senior military ofﬁcers, academic researchers, and individuals from interested organizations. Many of those who testiﬁed—most prominent among them General Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—expressed opposition to lifting the ban on gays and lesbians in the military. In the midst of the reviews and the political debate, the Clinton Administration announced its position on the issue—referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue.” This approach would have ended the practice of directly questioning recruits about their sexual orientation (“Don’t Ask”), would have required gay and lesbian personnel to keep their sexual orientation private (“Don’t Tell”), and would have, at least in concept, prevented investigations from being started on an arbitrary basis (“Don’t Pursue”). Ultimately, after hearings and extensive debate, Congress enacted into law much of the Administration’s proposal, albeit without the “Don’t Pursue” component, as part of the 1994 National Defense Authorization Act. The new law was codiﬁed at Section 654 of Title 10 of the United States Code. Central to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law were ﬁfteen policy ﬁndings by Congress, made after numerous hearings and testimony, and which were similar in large part to the ﬁndings and recommendations of the 1993 Military Working Group. These ﬁndings noted the importance of high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion to success in combat, the fact that “military life is fundamentally different than civilian life,” and that it is often necessary of military members “involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often Spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.” The ﬁndings concluded that “[t]he prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service” and “[t]he presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”56 The Department of Defense implemented the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law by incorporating provisions regarding homosexual conduct into the DoD regulations covering separations

55 RAND, 1993, xxiv. 56 10 U.S.C. § 654.

22

and accessions.57 Based on these DoD regulations, the military departments each issued their own implementing regulations.58

Separations
Since 1980, over 32,000 active duty Service members have been separated on the basis of homosexuality or homosexual conduct under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and its predecessor policies; of these more than 13,000 occurred since the law was enacted.59 During the early 1980s the number of Service members separated each year for homosexuality was approximately 1,700. This number dropped to approximately 900–1,000 per year between 1987 and 1992. After Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was enacted, an average of approximately 700–800 Service members were separated from the military on the basis of homosexual conduct. In the years 1997–2001, separations increased to approximately 1,100 year.60 Figure 2. Number of Annual Separations for Homosexual Conduct per Separations for Homosexuality per 100,000 Service Members 100,000 Active Duty Service Members in the U.S. Military Services by Year
100 Separations by 100,000 80 60 40 20 0
19 80 19 8 5 19 90 19 9 5 20 00 20 05 20 10

Since Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has been in place, approximately 85% of discharges for homosexual conduct have been made on the basis of statements by the Service member, while approximately 15% were on the basis of homosexual acts.61 Further, 69% of homosexual conduct discharges under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were of male Service members.62 Also, the vast majority—nearly 99% —of separations under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell have been of enlisted personnel, who make up roughly 84% of the active force.63 Approximately one quarter of these discharges have occurred in the ﬁrst four months of a Service member’s service.64 While the over 13,000 active duty Service members discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is itself a substantial number, these discharges constitute a very small portion of the overall number of discharges from the military. Since 2005 the number of discharges for homosexual conduct is just under 1% of all involuntary discharges, which include, for example, discharges for misconduct, medical disqualiﬁcation, hardship, and indiscipline.65 Overall, homosexual conduct discharges represent approximately one third of one percent (0.33%) of all separations, voluntary and involuntary, from the military.66

Attitudes of the American Public
Since Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was enacted in 1993, a number of public opinion polls reveal shifting public sentiment toward gay men and lesbians in the U.S. military. These polls, and the attitudes they reﬂect, are of limited relevance for our review but are noted here as they reﬂect the changing views of society at large—which includes both current and potential future Service members, military families, and others who may inﬂuence Service members’ views and attitudes. In the early 1990s, polls by major national polling and news organizations consistently indicated that 50–60% of the American public supported allowing gay men and lesbians to serve in the military, and around 40% supported allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly. In the years since, polls indicated that public opinion has shifted toward greater support of open military service by gay men and lesbians, as reﬂected in Figure 3 below. It is signiﬁcant to note the difference in the level of support for allowing gays and lesbians to serve versus allowing them to serve “openly.”

Attitudes of the American Military
Authoritative data on Service members’ opinions on whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military is limited. While several organizations have polled military personnel, these polls tend to lack the methodological rigor of many of the public opinion polls described above. These polls of Service members, limited as they are, show the same general trend over time toward greater support for open service by gay men and lesbians.67 However, the trend lags behind the acceptance of open service found in the public at large. Because of their various limitations, the Working Group has not relied on these polls; nor has the Working Group conducted its own poll of whether Service members think Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. As stated before, it was not our mission to conduct such a referendum of Service members.
67 Polls include Annenberg Public Policy Center, National Annenberg Election Survey, Washington, October 2004; Zogby International and Sam Rodgers, Opinions of Military Personnel on Gays in the Military, New York, December 2006, 5-7.

25

Litigation
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. However, lower Federal appellate courts have, until recently, consistently upheld the law in the face of constitutional challenges. Plaintiffs in these cases have brought a variety of constitutional challenges to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, including free speech arguments under the First Amendment, and equal protection and substantive due process arguments under the Fifth Amendment. In evaluating these challenges, the courts until recently have by and large reviewed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell under a “rational basis” legal standard, which is the most deferential standard of judicial review. In practice, application of the rational basis standard means that a court will almost always ﬁnd a law to be constitutional. The courts have also shown substantial deference to the judgments of Congress and the Executive, which they traditionally do in matters involving military affairs. In upholding the constitutionality of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the courts have relied on the ﬁndings made by Congress in 1993, which came after many hearings and much congressional testimony and were codiﬁed in the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell statute itself. These early Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell cases were decided against a backdrop of the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick.68 In that case, the Supreme Court found that there was no fundamental right to engage in consensual, homosexual sodomy. Seventeen years later, however, in the case Lawrence v. Texas,69 the Supreme Court overturned Bowers. In Lawrence, the Court found a Texas law that criminalized homosexual sodomy to be unconstitutional, and ruled that consenting adults have a protected liberty interest to engage in private, consensual sexual intimacy. The Court explicitly rejected Bowers, declaring “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.” Lawrence has had an impact on lower court constitutional challenges to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Since Lawrence, two Federal appellate courts—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in the case Witt v. Department of the Air Force,70 and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in the case Cook v. Gates71—have held that the deferential “rational basis” standard of review is no longer appropriate and have required the government to defend Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell under a heightened level of constitutional scrutiny. However, these two courts came to different conclusions about the constitutionality of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

In the First Circuit decision, the government still prevailed: the court held that although Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be subject to heightened scrutiny, it concluded that the law met this standard, by deferring to the ﬁndings made by Congress in 1993. In the Witt case, however, the Ninth Circuit decided that it must look at the particular facts of each individual case to determine if the application of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to that Service member was constitutional. The court therefore required the government to demonstrate that Major Witt’s discharge under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell “signiﬁcantly further[s]” an “important governmental interest,” such as military readiness or unit cohesion, and that her discharge was “necessary to further that interest.”72 The court remanded the case to the district court to evaluate the speciﬁc facts of Major Witt’s separation against this new, higher standard of review. Following a 6-day trial in September 2010, the district court held that the government had not met this higher standard and ordered Major Witt to be re-instated in the Air Force, subject to meeting applicable re-entry requirements. As of this writing, the government has appealed the trial court’s ruling, and the appeal is pending review by the Ninth Circuit. Earlier that same month, on September 9, 2010, another Federal district court in California, following an 8-day bench trial, declared Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to be unconstitutional in its entirety, in the case Log Cabin Republicans v. Gates.73 This case differed in an important way from the Witt case in that the court reviewed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy as applied to everyone, not just the particular plaintiff. The district court held that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell violates Service members’ substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, as well their free speech rights under the First Amendment. Applying the Witt heightened scrutiny standard, the district court ruled that the government had failed to show that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell signiﬁcantly furthers the government’s interest in military readiness or unit cohesion. The district court also ruled that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell places restrictions on speech that are broader than are reasonably necessary. Consequently, the district court held that the law and policy are unconstitutional. On October 12, in that same case, the district court issued a worldwide injunction that immediately prohibited enforcement of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy. The decision and injunction were appealed by the government, and on October 20 the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction pending the appeal. As of this writing, the appeal before the Ninth Circuit is still pending.

Pending Legislation
In his State of the Union address in January of this year, President Obama declared that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell “denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love

because of who they are,” and he stated his intention to work with the military and Congress to repeal the law.74 The following week, on February 2, 2010, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff both testiﬁed before the Senate Armed Service Committee in support of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.75 At the same time, Secretary Gates announced his intent to appoint this Working Group. The Working Group was ofﬁcially established one month later, on March 2, and the Secretary directed that the Working Group submit a report of its assessment and recommendations to him by December 1, 2010.76 In May 2010, well before this report was completed, efforts in Congress to repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law gained momentum, and a repeal provision was added to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011 in both the House and Senate. On May 27, the House agreed to an amendment to the NDAA (H.R. 5136) to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and the NDAA, with the amendment, passed the full House on May 28. That same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee added the identical repeal language to its version of the NDAA (S. 3454). Efforts on the Senate ﬂoor in September 2010 to pass the NDAA did not yield a vote, and as of this writing, the full Senate has not passed the NDAA for FY 2011. The repeal provision contained within both the House of Representatives and Senate Armed Services Committee versions of the NDAA would work as follows: once the law is enacted, repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654 would be effective only after the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs deliver to Congress a certiﬁcation that: 1) they have considered this report and recommendations; 2) the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary post-repeal policies and regulations; and 3) the implementation of those policies and regulations is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces. Once the certiﬁcation is delivered, repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654 becomes effective 60 days later.77 Again, as of this writing, the full Senate has not passed S. 3454, and the FY2011 NDAA containing the repeal provision has not become law.

74

Ofﬁce of the Press Secretary, The White House, Remarks by the President in the State of the Union Address, January 27, 2010, accessed November 20, 2010, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-ofﬁce/remarks-president-state-union-address. 75 Senate Committee on Armed Services, Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011, and to Receive Testimony Relating to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy, 111th Cong. 2d Sess., 2010. 76 See Appendix A, “Memorandum and Terms of Reference.” 77 House, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, 111th Cong., 2d Sess., H.R. 5136; Senate, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, 111th Cong. 2d Sess., S. 3454.

28

III

OUR MISSION

On February 2, 2010, in testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced his intent to appoint this Comprehensive Review Working Group from within the Department of Defense to, as he put it, undertake a “review of the issues associated with properly implementing a repeal of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy.”78 Our mandate from the Secretary was to “thoroughly, objectively and methodically examine all aspects of this question.”79 The Working Group was established on March 2, 2010. The Terms of Reference issued to us by the Secretary were to: 1. Determine any impacts on military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness and recommend any actions that should be taken in light of such impacts. 2. Determine leadership, guidance, and training on standards of conduct and new policies. 3. Determine appropriate changes to existing policies and regulations, including but not limited to issues regarding personnel management, leadership and training, facilities, investigations, and beneﬁts. 4. Recommend appropriate changes (if any) to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 5. Monitor and evaluate existing legislative proposals to repeal 10 U.S.C. § 654 and proposals that may be introduced in the Congress during the period of this review. 6. Assure appropriate ways to monitor the workforce climate and military effectiveness that support successful follow-through on implementation. 7. Evaluate the issues raised in ongoing litigation involving 10 U.S.C. § 654. The Secretary directed that we deliver the report with our assessment and recommendations, as well as a plan of action to support implementation of repeal, by December 1, 2010.

Underlying our nine-month assignment were two guiding principles. First, our review was to be wide-ranging and comprehensive, and include “active outreach” across the force. We were directed to “systematically engage” the force at all levels, which necessarily encompassed the large surveys of Service members and spouses, the numerous large-group information exchange forums, the smaller focus group sessions, the online inbox, and the conﬁdential communication mechanism. In addition, we were directed to solicit the views of military families as part of the review, because of the inﬂuence families play on a Service member’s decision to join, stay in, or leave the force. Second, both the Secretary and we were mindful that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is, to many, an emotional, divisive, and political issue, and he directed us to conduct our review in a “professional, thorough and dispassionate manner,” and to “minimize disruption and polarization within the ranks.” In accordance with that, at the outset of our review, we directed Working Group members to leave their personal views about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell at the door, and we abided by the same principle ourselves. In the course of our work, we studiously avoided soliciting Working Group members’ personal views about the issue.

30

IV

OUR WORKING GROUP

The Working Group was composed of military and civilian personnel from across the Department of Defense and the Military Services. Of the 68 individuals associated with the Working Group, 49 were military, both ofﬁcer and enlisted, and 19 were civilian personnel.80 Air Force Major General Gregory Biscone served as the Working Group’s chief of staff and coordinated its efforts. In addition, because an overwhelming majority of separations under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell occurred among the enlisted force, we ensured that the Working Group consisted of a number of enlisted personnel, with Navy Fleet Master Chief Scott Benning serving as the senior enlisted advisor to the Working Group. A majority of the Working Group’s members were assigned to four teams, each led jointly by a senior DoD civilian and a two- or three-star general or ﬂag ofﬁcer. Survey Team. Led by Lieutenant General Richard Newton, Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and Personnel, and Mr. Karl Schneider, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower & Reserve Affairs, this team oversaw the Working Group’s engagement of the force, including surveys of Service members and military spouses, the online inbox, and the conﬁdential communication mechanism, and served as our primary interface with RAND. Legislative, Regulatory, and Legal Team. Led by Mr. Paul Oostburg Sanz, General Counsel of the Navy and Major General Steve Lepper, Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air Force, this team provided analysis of the various laws, policies, and regulations addressing homosexual conduct and status in the military and civilian life, and provided recommendations for changes to Federal law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and certain regulations should Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell be repealed. This team also monitored and evaluated the legislation pending in Congress to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the ongoing litigation involving the issue. Policy Team. Led by Mr. Daniel B. Ginsberg, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Vice Admiral Mark Ferguson, Chief of Naval Personnel, and Lieutenant General Thomas Bostick, Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, this team produced recommended changes to policies that would be affected by a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
80 See Appendix B, “Comprehensive Review Working Group.”

31

Education and Training Team. Led by Lieutenant General Richard Zilmer, Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs of the Marine Corps and Mr. Joseph McDade, Jr., Army Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, this team provided recommendations for an education and training plan in the event of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. In the course of our review, the Working Group also provided regular reports to and was advised by an “Executive Committee” consisting of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; the Under Secretaries and Vice Chiefs of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Vice Commandant of the Coast Guard; the senior enlisted leader of each Service; and the Chief and senior enlisted advisor of the National Guard Bureau. Support for our work was provided by a number of DoD and Service agencies, including the Defense Manpower Data Center; the U.S. Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences; the Navy Personnel Research Science and Technology Laboratory; the Army Personnel Survey Ofﬁce; the Air Force Personnel Survey Ofﬁce; the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute; CNA; the Ofﬁce of the Department of Defense Historian; the Historians of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the FBI Historian; the Armed Services Chaplains Board; the U.S. Military Academy (West Point); the U.S. Naval Academy; the U.S. Air Force Academy; the U.S. Coast Guard Academy; and the Surgeons General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

32

V

OUR WORK

Systematic Engagement of the Force
The Secretary of Defense directed our Working Group to engage in a far-reaching effort unlike any other, to “systematically engage the force” about a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. In his initial written direction, the Secretary stated: “To effectively accomplish this assessment, I believe it essential that the working group systematically engage the force. The participation of a range of age, rank and warfare communities in this study including families, in addition to active outreach across the force is a critical aspect that will undoubtedly lead to insights and recommendations essential to the Department’s implementation of any change.”81 To accomplish this goal, the Working Group solicited the views of Service members and their families through a variety of means: Information Exchange Forums. The Working Group conducted 95 “information exchange forums” (IEFs) at 51 separate installations with a total of about 24,000 active duty, guard and reserve Service members. These IEFs typically ranged in size from 150–300 military personnel who, in almost all cases, were assigned to attend by the base or installation leadership. Smaller IEFs were conducted with military spouses at most installations visited. We attended many of the IEFs personally and led the discussions, others were led by other members of the Working Group leadership, generally two team leads and one senior enlisted leader. With very few exceptions, we found the discussion at IEFs to be lively, frank, candid, and at times emotional, but always civil. IEFs were not open to the general public or media, but participants were advised at the outset of each IEF that information expressed at the sessions was not conﬁdential. The following table lists the installations at where we conducted IEFs, in addition to an initial session we conducted at the Pentagon:

Note: Locations of IEFs are listed according to the Service that had responsibity for the visit; however, most IEFs were attended by personnel from various Services and components.

At the Secretary’s direction, IEFs were not conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan to avoid interference with the missions there. However, at installations such as Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Benning, Camp Lejeune, and elsewhere, we encountered large numbers of Service members who had deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan one or more times, or were preparing to deploy. These Service members shared their perspectives concerning the impact of repeal in combat situations and deployed environments. Focus Groups. Typically, as a follow-on to each IEF, the Working Group held focus groups in smaller sessions of 9–12 Service members each (and sometimes family members)—140 in all—intended to understand the views of the military community in a more intimate and relaxed

34

setting. Trained discussion facilitators from Westat led the focus group sessions. All focus group attendees were told their participation was voluntary and they could leave at any time. Focus group attendees were also asked to honor a request for non-attribution of all comments made during the discussions, but attendees were also told that the conﬁdentiality of comments made in focus groups could not be guaranteed. Similarly, at many installations, we and other senior members of the Working Group conducted small and informal leadership discussion groups with general and ﬂag ofﬁcers and senior enlisted Service members. Online Inbox. The Working Group established this mechanism to allow all Service members and their families to anonymously express their views to the Working Group through a website accessible with a Common Access Card (CAC). Access to the online inbox was restricted to CAC holders to help ensure that comments were entered only by Service members. The Working Group also encouraged Service members to input comments provided by their family. To ensure the comments we received did not include identifying information (other than rank and Service), the Working Group contracted with the Data Recognition Corporation to redact names, units, and other similar information prior to providing the comments to the Working Group. In all, the Working Group received 72,384 total comments about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell via the online inbox, with 98% (70,732) of these comments from Service members. Among Service member comments, 70% were from the enlisted ranks. Of those Service members who contributed to the online inbox, the breakdown among the Services and grade is given in the ﬁgure below: Figure 4. Distribution of Service Member Comments to Online Inbox by Service and Grade
Online Inbox Contribution By Service
Online Inbox Contribution By Service Online Inbox Contribution By Service
18% 18% 4% 4% Coast Guard Coast Guard Marine Corps Marine Corps 29% 29% 13% 13% Air Force Air Force Navy Navy Army Army

Service Members’ Survey. To conduct a large-scale survey of Service members, we retained the Westat Corporation. Westat has regularly provided research services to agencies of the U.S. Government, as well as businesses, foundations, and state and local governments since 1963. Westat has a long track record of studies that support the military’s human resource needs—particularly in the areas of personnel recruitment and retention, quality of life, and programs for military members and their families. The results of these studies are used to shape many of the human resources policies and practices of the Military Services. The Service member survey was developed by representatives from the Working Group, Westat, the Defense Manpower Data Center, and the Services’ survey ofﬁces. The survey questions were devised to address each area of the Terms of Reference, as well as additional topics of concern (e.g., privacy) that were identiﬁed through our IEFs and other engagements with the forces. Once drafted, questions were subjected to multiple rounds of review and scrutiny beginning with survey experts from the Military Services, the Defense Manpower Data Center, and the Ofﬁce of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Prior to release, the Army, Navy, and Air Force Chiefs of Staff, the Commandants of the Marine Corps and Coast Guard all had an opportunity to review and comment upon the survey questions. Initially, the Working Group intended to solicit 200,000 active duty and reserve component Service members to participate in the survey. At the direction of the Secretary of Defense in May, the Working Group doubled the intended number of recipients to 400,000. Service members solicited to complete the survey were selected at random according to standard practice used by the Defense Manpower Data Center to sample the population. Service members were sampled according to military Service, active/reserve components, pay grade, military occupation, deployment status, location, gender, and family status. The sampling plan also called for an oversampling of certain sub-groups (e.g., enlisted Service members at the grade of E1–E3) who in recent DoD surveys tended to have lower response rates than the overall military population. This combination of stratiﬁcation and selected oversampling was intended to ensure that survey responses were as representative of the force as possible. The 103-question web-based survey was designed to take approximately 30 minutes to complete. The survey was released on July 7, 2010, and was available online through August 15, 2010. Service members chosen for the survey received a letter explaining the purpose of the survey, along with a unique PIN for accessing the survey. Survey invitations were sent to Service members via e-mail, and the participants responded to the survey online. Westat sent ﬁve reminder notices to Service members; two of the notices were sent by both e-mail and U.S. mail, and the other three reminders were sent by e-mail only.

36

In all, we received 115,052 responses (28% of those solicited)—making this one of the largest surveys ever within the U.S. military. The percent of Service members who received the survey and responded82 by Service were:
Army – 19% of active duty personnel who received the survey responded, 22% for the Army National Guard, and 25% for U.S. Army Reserve Marine Corps – 29% of active duty personnel who received the survey responded and 20% for the Marine Corps Reserve Navy – 28% of active duty personnel who received the survey responded and 33% for the U.S. Navy Reserve Air Force – 39% of active duty personnel who received the survey responded, 38% for Air Force National Guard, and 39% for the Air Force Reserve Coast Guard – 54% of active duty personnel who received the survey responded and 39% for Coast Guard Reserve.

The response rate for this survey, as a whole and by Service, was in-line with typical response rates for surveys within the Department of Defense. Since 2008, DMDC’s Status of Forces Survey (SOFS) program, which features the most comparable methodology to the Service member and spouse surveys (web administration with postal and e-mail notiﬁcations and reminders), has seen response rates of 29–32% for Active Duty Service members, and 25–29% for Reservists.83 To offer perspective on the scope and representative accuracy of the survey results, we note that recent Gallup polls of national opinion have surveyed 1,021 respondents to achieve a ±4% margin of error;84 and 2,240, to achieve a ±2% margin of error,85 with 95% conﬁdence that the results represent the views of the targeted U.S. adult population of more than 227 million.86 In comparison, the Service member survey received responses from a signiﬁcantly larger number of respondents (more than 115,000), representing a much smaller target active duty and reserve (including Coast Guard) population of around 2.2 million.87 The number of responses to the Service member survey reduced the margin of

error to less than ±1%, with a similar 95% level of conﬁdence in the representative accuracy of the results. The spouse survey was similar. Spouse Survey. We also surveyed the spouses of active duty and reserve component Service members. The spouse survey was, like the Service member survey, created through a joint effort between the Department of Defense and Westat. Questions for the survey were mainly taken from the Service member survey and existing DoD family readiness surveys. Other questions were developed based on issues raised by family members in IEFs and family focus groups. Through an iterative process between Westat and the Working Group, questions were edited, cut, and added in order to effectively assess spouses’ attitudes about the potential impact of repeal on recruiting, retention, and family readiness. Further drafts were reviewed by senior Service representatives and representatives from the Ofﬁce of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. The ﬁnal draft was approved by the Working Group and Westat, after taking into account comments from the Services and Ofﬁce of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. The ﬁnal spouse survey included 43 questions and was expected to take 15–20 minutes to complete. In all, 150,186 spouses of Service members were solicited to respond to the survey, randomly selected from a DoD database and chosen for the purposes of obtaining a statistically representative sample. The spouse survey was sent out via postal mail on August 13, 2010, and responses were accepted until September 26, 2010. Westat sent two reminder notices to spouse non-respondents, followed by a second survey and a ﬁnal reminder. In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard sent a separate communication encouraging participation in the spouse survey. In all, we received 44,266 responses to the spouse survey, or 30% of those solicited. Confidential Communication Mechanism. At the outset of this review, we recognized that some Service members, particularly those who are gay or lesbian, would want a means of communicating their thoughts and concerns about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to the Working Group in an anonymous and conﬁdential manner. We also recognized that the viewpoints of current Service members who are gay or lesbian would be important to obtain as part of this review, but that the Working Group’s ability to do so was constrained by current law and policy. To meet this need, the Working Group directed the Westat Corporation to design, implement, and manage a conﬁdential communication mechanism to engage Service members, including gay and lesbian Service members, in a live interactive online exchange. These conﬁdential dialogues offered the opportunity for Service members to engage in conﬁdential online discussions with Westat moderators. Service members were provided a PIN to allow them to use the conﬁdential communication mechanism on a non-government computer and in a place of their choosing. Like the Service member survey, the conﬁdential communication mechanism was open from July 7, 2010, through August 15, 2010. The Working Group ensured that the online conﬁdential communication mechanism was accessible from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm Eastern time, seven days a week, to enable Service

38

members around the world to utilize it. After conducting an online dialogue, Westat analysts removed information that could be used to personally identify the Service member. In all, 2,691 Service members and family members made use of the conﬁdential communication mechanism to communicate with Westat, including 296 who self-identiﬁed as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Confidentiality. In order to protect the conﬁdentiality of individuals who utilized the conﬁdential communication mechanism, Westat obtained a Certiﬁcate of Conﬁdentiality from the Department of Health and Human Services. This Certiﬁcate also covered other aspects of Westat’s work including the Service member and spouse surveys, and family focus groups. With the Certiﬁcate, issued in accordance with section 201(d) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 241(d), Westat cannot be compelled to release the identities or identifying characteristics of participants in the surveys, conﬁdential communication mechanism, or family focus groups to Federal, state, or local authorities. Users of the conﬁdential communication mechanism were informed of the Certiﬁcation of Conﬁdentiality and were told that Westat would not disclose their identity unless a participant provided consent for release of that information or Westat discovered that a participant planned harm against him or herself or another. We are conﬁdent that these conﬁdentiality protections helped ensure that gay and lesbian Service members were able to discuss the issues related to their service in the military fully and candidly, without fear that the information they revealed might generate an investigation or discharge under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Research
The Working Group also turned to a number of academic and research sources, both inside and outside the Department of Defense, to obtain insight in the issues associated with a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The Working Group actively engaged with scholars from each of the Service academies. Faculty and researchers at the academies drafted white papers that included useful research and guidance on issues related to repeal. The West Point paper addressed the issue of repeal from a variety of disciplines, including philosophy and ethics, organizational behavior, psychology, sociology, and management. The Air Force Academy paper built on the solid base provided by the West Point paper and extended the discussion into implications for implementation. The Naval Academy paper discussed diversity implications for repeal and provided suggestions for potential implementation. An important contribution of the Coast Guard Academy white paper was a thoughtful discussion of the religious and moral issues related to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law. The Working Group consulted historians from the Department of Defense and the Services, who provided historical insights on topics such as the past usage of surveys in

39

military personnel studies and the experience of the U.S. military with racial and gender integration. The Working Group hosted meetings with faculty, scholars, and researchers from the academies, war colleges, research laboratories, and civilian academia with expertise related to military personnel matters, organizational change management, and other relevant issues.

Key Engagements
Consistent with our Terms of Reference, the Working Group engaged a large number of interested and relevant organizations for their advice and viewpoints, including those who are prominent advocates for and against the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. These meetings spanned nearly the entire period of our review, beginning with an initial round of meetings, at our invitation, not long after the Working Group was ﬁrst stood up. The advocacy groups and organizations with which we met included:
Alliance Defense Fund Center for American Progress Center for Military Readiness Center for Security Policy Family Research Council Focus on the Family Heritage Foundation Human Rights Campaign Liberty Counsel OutServe Palm Center for the Study of Sexuality in the Military Service Members Legal Defense Network SLDN Military Outreach Committee Service Members United USMA Knights Out

We attended most of these meetings personally. We learned much from these organizations, and appreciated the many diverse views provided. These views did much to inform the assessments and recommendations in this report. (These meetings with the Working Group, however, should in no way be interpreted as participation by these

40

organizations in the Working Group, or endorsement by them of the Working Group or our assessments and recommendations.) On September 16, 2010, the Working Group met with 15 same-sex partners of gay and lesbian current Service members to hear their viewpoints and experiences. The Working Group consulted current and former military chaplains in groups and individually, on several occasions. We also personally met with the four heads of the Services’ chaplains corps to solicit their views on the impact of repeal. These chaplains were drawn from the full spectrum of religious afﬁliations, all Military Services, and included junior, mid-level, and senior chaplains. In addition, the Working Group consulted the chaplains’ endorsing organizations. At present, there are 202 religious organizations that serve as endorsing agencies for chaplains in the U.S. military. Through the auspices of the Armed Forces Chaplain’s Board, the Working Group requested input from all 202 of these endorsing agencies concerning the effect repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell may have on the ministry of the chaplains they endorse. The Working Group received replies from 77 of these endorsing organizations. Several other religious organizations, including, for example, the Catholic League and the North Carolina Conference of Methodist Church Youth, submitted unsolicited input, opinion, and documents for the Working Group’s consideration. We personally met with the Service Surgeons General and discussed medical issues associated with repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, such as safety concerns about the blood supply. Additionally, the Working Group reached out to the:
American Medical Association American Psychological Association Gay and Lesbian Medical Association

We solicited input from veteran and Military Service organizations. organizations included:
Air Force Association American Legion AMVETS Association of the U.S. Army Association of the U.S. Navy Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Marine Corps League Military Families United

These

41

Military Ofﬁcers Association of America National Association for Uniformed Services National Guard Association of the United States National Military Family Association Non Commissioned Ofﬁcers Association Reserve Ofﬁcers Association Service Women’s Action Network Student Veterans of America Veterans of Foreign Wars Veterans and Military Families for Progress Vietnam Veterans of America VoteVets

We met with representatives from these veteran and Military Service organizations during March, April, and May. These groups also provided information and other written materials to the Working Group, including surveys, public statements, policy analysis, and testimony. (As above, these meetings did not constitute formal participation in or endorsement of the Working Group process.) Additionally, we met personally with a number of gay and lesbian veterans arranged by the Human Rights Campaign, Servicemembers’ Legal Defense Network’s Military Outreach Committee and by Servicemembers United. Finally, we personally visited with and solicited the views of several members of Congress and their staffs. Overall, the Working Group accepted information from these organizations and any others who offered input.

Engagement with Foreign Militaries
In order to understand the experiences of foreign militaries with the integration of gay and lesbian personnel, the Working Group contacted representatives of all nations who are members of NATO and those nations that contribute to the International Security Assistance Force - Afghanistan, to obtain information on those nations’ policies regarding gay and lesbian Service members. General Ham had a number of conversations with counterparts in the European and Israeli militaries. At a conference with his counterparts from the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Australia, Denmark, and the Netherlands, Mr. Johnson solicited their views and experiences. On May 19, 2010, members of the Working Group attended a conference held at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. and hosted by the Century Defense Initiative at Brookings and the Palm Center. Senior military ofﬁcers

42

and experts from Australia, Britain, Canada, Israel, the Netherlands, and Sweden discussed their experiences with implementing policy changes related to the open service of gay and lesbian Service members in their countries. The Working Group sought additional, detailed information from the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia in particular, regarding their transition experiences, implementation plans, and lessons learned.

RAND Study Update
As directed by Secretary Gates in the Terms of Reference, the Working Group engaged RAND to update its 1993 study, Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy. RAND’s update provided us with an additional source of input for our assessment and recommendations. For its updated study, RAND’s research centered on the following nine areas: Foreign Militaries. RAND examined the experiences of selected foreign governments that have changed or are considering changing their policies to allow openly gay and lesbian personnel to serve in their militaries. The RAND analysis focused on the following seven countries: Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Israel, and Australia. Police and Fire Departments and Other Government Organizations. RAND visited domestic police and ﬁre departments and other domestic governmental organizations that have dealt with the issue of integrating gay men and lesbians into their workforces. RAND collected information from 10 police and ﬁre departments, as well as the FBI, CIA, U.S. Agency for International Development, and State Department. Recruiting and Retention. RAND researched recruiting and retention since its 1993 study and assessed the factors associated with attitudes towards gay men and lesbians in the general population. First, they reviewed recent major studies of the determinants of enlistments and reenlistments and drew from that literature and other available data to describe important trends in these determinants since 1993. Second, they assessed the possible effects of repeal on recruiting and retention by looking at youth survey data and the relevant results from the Working Group’s Service member survey. Military Focus Groups. RAND conducted 22 focus groups with Service members at 10 military bases across the country. Survey of Serving Gay Men and Lesbians. RAND conducted a limited survey designed to gather information on how gay men and lesbians manage their identity in military units and how that might change if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. RAND adopted a “peer-topeer recruitment” approach to conduct its survey. This approach is based on the assumption that there are existing networks of gay and lesbian Service members who are known to

43

each other. RAND ﬁelded the survey through the Internet, and using this approach, RAND reached 208 self-identiﬁed gay and lesbian current Service members. Unit Cohesion and Performance. RAND updated its 1993 report with new research on unit cohesion and performance conducted since 1993. Homosexual Identity and Behavior. RAND updated its 1993 report with new data on the prevalence of homosexuality in the general population and the military. RAND also provided updated research on sexual orientation, sexual behavior, and gay and lesbian individual behavior with regard to disclosing their sexual identity. In addition, RAND updated its research on the epidemiology of HIV and other health issues within the gay and lesbian population. Developments in Policy and Public Opinion Since Passage of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. RAND examined signiﬁcant events and developments in U.S. military personnel policy regarding sexual orientation since 1993. In addition, RAND overviewed changes in public opinion regarding the ability of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Implementation. RAND conducted a literature review and engaged in focused ﬁeld observations on how organizations have changed policies concerning sexual orientation in the workplace and in other relevant contexts, such as college housing. RAND’s updated report served as an additional independent input to our assessment and recommendations, and not as a stand-alone assessment. In many areas, RAND’s work overlapped with the Working Group review, while in some areas, they provided new information for our consideration.

Legal and Policy Review
The Working Group identiﬁed a number of issues areas that merited a review of existing policies and consideration of possible policy modiﬁcations in the event of repeal. These issue areas were identiﬁed in large part from what the Working Group learned in our engagements with the force, in addition to those areas speciﬁcally listed in the Terms of Reference. Among the issue areas considered by the Working Group were equal opportunity policy; collection and maintenance of data based on sexual orientation; standards of conduct; changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Manual for Courts-Martial; privacy and cohabitation; beneﬁts; duty assignments; medical policies; re-accession of prior Service members; moral and religious concerns; and release from service commitments. For each of these issue areas, and others, the Working Group reviewed the relevant laws, regulations, and Department of Defense and Service policies and issuances (directives, instructions, and memoranda) and evaluated various policy options. The Working Group’s work, in doing so, was extensive. For instance, the Working Group issued a data call to the

44

Services, in response to which the Services submitted 1,007 documents. These documents were integrated in the Working Group’s policy analysis. To understand issues related to stationing gay and lesbian Service members and their families overseas, the Working Group compiled and analyzed over 320 Status of Forces Agreements and their amendments, researched the laws and policies regarding homosexuality of 194 countries, and interviewed 21 legal scholars from foreign nations. The Working Group examined data from the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Health and Human Services, solicited input from medical personnel across the Services, to include the Services Surgeons General, and consulted with medical experts from the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association. When delving into the beneﬁts issue, the Working Group examined the applicability of 126 military and veterans beneﬁts to same-sex partners and their children that are codiﬁed in several hundred enumerated statutes within Titles 10, 37, and 38 of the United States Code. The Working Group conducted a comparative analysis of the laws and policies of all 50 states to understand family law issues, litigation trends under state constitutional rights regarding employment and housing discrimination, and the interrelation and impact of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Working Group reviewed and considered the scores of reports, articles, and research studies received from external advocacy groups and organizations. Based on this extensive research and policy analysis, input from our engagements with the force, and consultation with policy subject matter experts, the Working Group developed a range of potential courses of action for each issue area. The Working Group then provided these policy options and recommended approach to the Executive Committee for their thoughts and insights into how the Department of Defense should proceed in these areas in the event of repeal. Comments from the Executive Committee informed our ultimate recommendations on these issues, which are summarized in section XIII of this report.

Leadership, Education, and Training
The Working Group worked with the Services’ training experts, Service academy staff, and the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute to deﬁne education and training requirements in the event of repeal and to develop leadership, education, and training guidance and tools. The following principles guided the Working Group’s approach: 1) education and training requirements should provide the Services discretion in how they will implement repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell consistent with their unique service cultures, 2) education and training products should be simple and should target education and communication efforts that will assist leaders in successful implementation with minimal impact on the force, and 3) education and training implementation should leverage existing programs rather than creating new, stand-alone requirements. Beginning in May 2010, the Working Group met with Service Headquarters Education and Training Directorates to gain Service perspectives about education and training guidance and products. The Working Group later undertook leadership engagement visits to the Service Training and Education Commands. Between May and October, the Working Group also

45

conducted a series of monthly conferences with the Service Training Commands, Service academies, Professional Military Schools, and the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute to identify suggested communication, education, and training requirements and content. These meetings utilized the expertise of all the Services in the development of recommended education and training products. Each of these conferences had speciﬁc themes which corresponded with the progression of policy issues and with the development of various leadership, education, and training products. Many of these products are included in the support plan for implementation, published as a companion document to this report.

Panel Assessment
To assist us in our overall assessment, we convened a panel to assess impact of repeal on the areas speciﬁed in the Terms of Reference. This panel was made up of subject matter experts and Service members representing a range of Service, rank, and warfare communities. The panel reviewed all of the material relevant to each assessment area: military readiness, unit effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness. Information and data for this assessment was derived from the Working Group’s systematic engagement of the force and their families, input from interested and relevant organizations, scholarly work of civilian and military researchers, experiences of foreign militaries and domestic organizations with similarities to the military, and the historic record of racial and gender integration in the U.S. military. The assessment panel was aided by staff from the Joint Staff, J-8, and used a standard decision support process recommended by them. After coming to a numeric assessment of risk within each area, the panel considered the various policy, legal, and training and education recommendations that were intended to mitigate impacts within each assessment area and then developed a ﬁnal assessment of risk. A more detailed discussion of the assessment approach and the results of the panel’s assessment can be found in section XI of this report.

Fiscal Assessment
The Working Group identiﬁed areas for which a repeal would likely result in implementation costs, based on the assessment and implementation of recommendations contained in this report. These net costs were estimated with a rough order of magnitude. The costs included the extension of certain beneﬁts and support resources to a “member-designated” status, minor privacy-related modiﬁcations to a limited number of existing facilities, execution and administration of education and training programs for the force, and potential impacts on recruiting and retention. The Working Group also identiﬁed areas of cost avoidance stemming from the fact that, in the event of repeal, Service members would no longer be discharged on the basis of homosexual conduct. Savings would be derived by avoiding the need to recruit and to train Service members to replace those separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

46

Service Review
After completion of the policy review and development of policy recommendations, the Working Group also visited the Service war colleges and non-commissioned ofﬁcer academies to hold discussion panels with selected students. These institutions included the National Defense University, Army War College, Naval War College, Air War College, and U.S. Marine Corps War College, as well as U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy, Air Force Senior Noncommissioned Ofﬁcer Academy, and U.S. Navy Senior Enlisted Academy. At these panels, Working Group members discussed preliminary ﬁndings and recommendations to obtain feedback and insight from these current and future leaders. In addition, as directed, we provided the Military Department Secretaries and Service Chiefs with a near-ﬁnal version of our report for review and comment. The Secretaries and Chiefs provided us with extensive and insightful comments, as well as their perspectives on Service-level impacts, which helped inform our assessment and recommendations and contoured the ﬁnal version of this report.

47

48

VI

WHAT WE HEARD

The Secretary of Defense directed a far-reaching effort to “systematically engage the force” about a potential repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. As described in section V, the Working Group received survey responses from 115,052 Service members and 44,266 military spouses. Ninety-ﬁve information exchange forums were conducted with over 24,000 Service members, 140 smaller focus group sessions with a total of about 14,000 Service members, and received 72,384 online inbox entries. Westat engaged in interactive online conﬁdential communications with 2,691 Service members, including 296 who self-identiﬁed as gay or lesbian. The Working Group also engaged in discussions with a variety of different foreign governments, interested groups, historians, academics, doctors, chaplains, lawyers, veterans, communities within the military, and members of Congress on this topic. We heard frank, strong, and sharply divergent views on this topic, but we were heartened that the conversation was civil and respectful. For this section of the report, there is an important caveat. If the Working Group were to attempt to numerically divide the sentiments we heard expressed in IEFs, online inbox entries, focus groups, and conﬁdential online communications between those who were for or against repeal of the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, our sense is that the majority of views expressed were against repeal of the current policy. However, any such effort to divide the sentiments into one camp or another would not have any quantitative value, and would be highly misleading and ﬂawed. As we discovered from the survey results, the views voiced both for and against repeal in IEFs, online inbox entries, focus groups, and conﬁdential communications were not representative of the force as a whole. The Service members we heard from through these mechanisms were those individuals who felt strongly enough and motivated enough to give voice to their views. Further, the Service members and spouses participating in IEFs, focus groups, the online inbox, and online conﬁdential communication mechanism were not selected through a formal sampling process to ensure representativeness of the force. Many volunteered to participate, while others were asked by their local commands to participate. It is also true that Service members could make multiple inputs to the online inbox and online conﬁdential communication mechanism. The survey results, by contrast, were intended to and did capture the views of the force as a whole in an analytically sound and objective manner, and were representative across every component of the force.88

88

Westat, vol. 1, A1–A9.

49

But, through the large numbers of Service members we heard from in IEFs, focus groups, online inbox entries, and conﬁdential communications, a consistent list of concerns, observations, and arguments for and against the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy emerged. This list informs both our assessment and our set of recommendations in this report. In other words, the information obtained through these mechanisms is of qualitative, but not quantitative, value. The surveys are the instruments designed to provide data of quantitative value. What follows is selection of unvarnished comments89 representative of themes that we commonly and consistently heard from the force in IEFs, focus groups, online inbox comments, and online conﬁdential communication mechanism. Although the Working Group did not ask Service members whether the law should be repealed, the vast majority of Service members offered views on just that. As such, we divide the list into two basic categories: views in support of and against the current policy. Again, this list informs our assessment and the set of recommendations that follow in this report.

Views in Support of Current Policy
Privacy; Unwanted Advances. This concern was typically on the top of the list, the most prevalent in our discussions. In sum, Service members acknowledge the likelihood that they have already had the experience of being in close proximity to someone else in the military who is gay, but they were concerned about sharing bathroom facilities, living quarters, or berthing arrangements with someone they “know” to be gay. Many Service members raised the possibility that a third and possibly fourth category of bathroom facilities for gay and lesbian Service members would be necessary if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed. “I live in the barracks and I don’t think that it would go over well in that kind of environment. I’m concerned about how people would treat that individual.”90 “In the privacy side of the thing, they’ll have to make some changes to the current infrastructure, [for example] privacy stalls in the bathrooms.”91 “I do not have to shower or sleep in a room with men so I do not want to shower or sleep in the same room as a woman who is homosexual. I would feel uncomfortable changing and sleeping as I would if it was a man in the room. I should not have to accept this.”92

89

Some quotes in this report have been corrected for typographical errors and minor misspellings. In no case has the substance or content of the quote been altered. 90 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. 91 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. 92 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

50

“Tell him if he hits on me I will kick his - - -!”93 Overall Effects on Unit Cohesion. Many Service members expressed concern that repeal would hurt unit cohesion. Speciﬁc concerns included erosion of trust and caring between unit members, a decrease in socializing both on- and off-duty, and discomfort with working and ﬁghting alongside someone who may be sexually attracted to them. “I cannot rely on someone who I don’t feel comfortable with, nor can they trust me. A lack of trust turns into a lack of cohesion which eventually leads to mission failure.”94 “I think removing the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy will cause a negative effect. I believe it will cause more tension and isolation in workcenters. Causing workﬂow to decrease and attitudes of tension and conﬂict to arise.”95 “It will be difﬁcult to relate to new members. You just can’t show them around. Can’t take them out to a bar. It is tough to relate on a one on one basis.”96 “It will be detrimental to unit cohesion. They (the gay people) will be separated and will feel left out. Those who are openly gay will be excluded from social functions, such as barbeques. This, in turn, will result in people feeling bad, left-out or upset.”97 Religious and Moral Issues. Many Service members expressed strong religious and moral objections to homosexuality. These Service members worried that repeal would mean the end of their personal religious freedoms or a censorship of their religious views. Others questioned how religious beliefs would impact retention and whether military members would leave the military as a result of repeal. “For me personally, it’s morally wrong and socially unacceptable.”98 “People might separate voluntarily. That’s going to be detrimental to the government. I do my job, I know they’re here, but some people like myself have a problem if they come out. You can’t question my morals, you can’t make me stay.”99

“The problem is dealing with people’s background or moral teachings and there are a percentage of Marines who have a religious basis for being against homosexuality, and you cannot ask or force people to go against something that have been taught.”100 “…homosexuality is morally offensive. Like adultery, and drug use, I can not tolerate homosexuality. I will not work side by side with someone that is an adulterer, a drug addict, or a homosexual.”101 “What would they [the DoD] do? Come out with a memo saying that the Bible, Koran, etc are wrong and that it is ok to be gay?”102 “If the state favors the demands of the homosexual activists over the First Amendment, it is only a matter of time before the military censors the religious expression of its chaplains and marginalizes denominations that teach what the Bible says about homosexual behavior.”103 “The law works; why change it?” Many Service members expressed this view about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Others emphasized that their current units are effective and questioned how repeal would improve that performance. We also heard from those who believed the law actually protects gay men and lesbians from harassment or violence and keeps sexual orientation a personal and private matter. “You don’t ask you don’t tell, you come to work and do your job. It is not broke so don’t ﬁx it.”104 “Doesn’t DADT work, doesn’t it make sense? They can serve; just keep it to yourself.”105 “It is easier to live with speculation than conﬁrmation.”106 “If you know for sure, it would freak people out more. There are rumors, but you never know. If it is out of sight it is out of mind, but once you know for sure that’s when people are freaked out.”107

“I strongly disagree with the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. I believe it will cause more conﬂict and more hazing among the military. It seems to be working perfectly as is.”108 “Why now? We are at war.” Service members also voiced concern about taking this issue up now. There was a worry that Service members already have a very full plate (or overﬂowing rucksack) and that a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was just too much while ﬁghting two wars. “I believe this is not the time for us to make huge changes in the military. We are at war and our men and women overseas do not need any more distractions. This issue should be addressed at the appropriate time. That time is not now.”109 “I think there are times and places for everything. This is not that time when we are in two wars and money is an issue.”110 “The bottom line is the timing is wrong. We’re getting ready for another surge in Afghanistan, and it’s not the right time.”111 A number of Service members also believe repeal is politically motivated, driven by special interests. For example, a Service member told us that repeal was being driven by a “handful” of people who want to “push their agenda of trying to change society’s moral standards.”112 Another stated, “this isn’t about the military, this is politics.”113 Standards of Conduct. At almost every engagement, issues regarding standards of conduct were raised. Speciﬁc concerns were voiced about the possibility of unwanted sexual advances, violence erupting in reaction to repeal, and harassment. Some attendees said that they would ﬁnd it difﬁcult to witness public displays of affection between gay and lesbian Service members. Some Service members were troubled by the potential for ﬂamboyant behavior and questioned whether “pink boas” would be authorized with uniforms.114 “A small part of the military will come out and affect the entire military. Good order and discipline will be affected by this.”115 “Some will be ﬂamboyant; they might get a beating.”116

“There needs to be protection on both sides. People get drunk and it’s a whole other thing. There’s the possibility of beating up gays, but there’s also the possibility of a gay guy making advances.”117 “They should just sustain the standard. I don’t like ﬂamboyant queers.”118 “Flamboyant behavior by any members should not be allowed or tolerated.”119 Health Issues. Some Service members expressed concern that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would lead to increased risk of contracting HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases. Others had more general concerns about medical readiness and medical treatment of homosexuals or worries about battleﬁeld transfusions. “I think homosexual sex leads to diseases. There’s always a chance to getting what someone has.”120 “I think of the medical issues. The AIDS rate is running rampant in the gay community. When they go to medical will they be looked at different than a straight man? When you start looking at the statistics, they have more chance of getting an STD as well as other things. Doctors need to look at them differently from when I get checked. Another issue, when you ﬁll out your form at the doctors they will need to ask ‘are you homosexual’ so they can look for different things.”121 “If you are in an infantry company in a ﬁre ﬁght, and you have an open homosexual who gets wounded, who is going to want to treat him for the fear of HIV and other stuff?”122 “Blood transfusions in battle zones, when lives are on the line can become a stress point.”123 Same-sex Partner Benefits. Service members and their families asked many questions about extending beneﬁts to same-sex partners. Many cautioned that it would be unfair to treat same-sex partners differently than committed boyfriends or girlfriends of straight Service members. Others worried about the availability of resources to pay for beneﬁts.

“…I would have a problem giving their partners beneﬁts. That would not be fair to heterosexuals who have live-in boyfriends and don’t get beneﬁts.”124 “Allocation of resources is an issue. It’s a natural progression that beneﬁts will be given to partners. It’s a ﬁnancial stress on the system.”125 Creation of a New Protected Class. Service members questioned whether repeal would mean the creation of a new protected class like race or gender. Some were apprehensive that they could be forced to celebrate “gay pride week” or punished if they refused to socialize with gay and lesbian Service members. “How far are we going to go with this whole gay thing? Am I supposed to celebrate gayness—do they get to wear a rainbow ﬂag on their uniform? If that is the case, this uniform isn’t worth wearing.”126 “How will it fair for me to potentially decline social events with my gay boss or subordinates because of my religious beliefs? How do I host events without EO/IG complaints because I would not invite gay couples? My moral values cannot be compromised to support what I consider immoral behavior.”127 Erosion of Overall Standards Within the Military Community; Family Values. Many expressed the view that the military is “the last moral institution in American,” that repeal of the policy will destroy that, and that the military should not be used for “social experimentation.” “I believe that the impact would be devastating to me, my family, my unit, the military, our country and the world!”128 “People view the military as the last bastion of morals and what is good. If we break that down here, what does it boil down to? What’s left?”129 “The military shouldn’t be a testing ground for social experiments.”130 Participants frequently expressed concerns about living next door to a gay couple. Many were worried about how repeal would clash with the kinds of values they are trying to teach their children. In particular, they spoke about “exposing” their children to the “gay lifestyle.” They often voiced concerns about how that living situation would impact their
124 125 126 127 128 129 130 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010. Service member, CRWG Information Exchange Forum, 2010. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. Service member, Online Inbox, 2010. Service member, Conﬁdential Communication Mechanism, 2010. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

55

children. Others expressed a fondness for the military community because of the similarity in values and emphasis on family, and a fear that it will come to an end. Many of these concerns mirror concerns expressed in civilian society. “I’m raising my family and was brought up a devout Catholic. Now all of a sudden Adam and Steve move in next door. I have to deal with that earlier, now with my kid.”131 “I won’t raise my kids in a neighborhood with a gay family.”132 One Service member thought some parents might not want their children socializing with children from gay families.133 Others focused more generally on not wanting to deal with having to explain homosexuality to their children if they saw a gay or lesbian couple. “How can you attend a family meeting and have two guys holding hands there? What do you tell your kids?”134 “One of my main concerns should the law pass is preparing myself as a parent to explain the dynamics of a same sex couple/family. My son is far too young for me to explain this topic and would create confusion and pose questions that would place me and my spouse in a difﬁcult spot.”135 “If repealed I would have to deal with it and so would my family but I would not attend (unless ordered to) any function where that particular lifestyle would be exhibited.”136

Views in Support of Repeal
“There are already gays and lesbians in the military.” Typically, between 60% and 80% of Service members we talked to at information exchanges forums and small focus group discussions believed they had served alongside a gay or lesbian Service member. Many shared their belief that today the military performs its mission with gay men and lesbians and repeal would have no affect on performance—either personally or as a unit. “We’ve all worked with homosexuals; what’s changed? The standards are the same.”137
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. Service member, Conﬁdential Communication Mechanism, 2010. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

56

“Everyone kind of knows if someone is gay. There is no impact on effectiveness.”138 “I have served with gays in the military and have found them to be of high caliber and encompassing all the Army values and performance standards. Performance has NEVER been an issue.”139 “There are already gay men and women serving with me…and it does not have an impact on how I do my job.”140 “In the unit that I am in now there are individuals that are homosexual. Of course they aren’t able to come out and say it but we know. I really don’t see an impact in my unit. We haven’t had any issues thus far and these soldiers have been deployed numerous times with the same people.”141 “I don’t care, as long as he can fight.” Other Service members stated they didn’t care about the whole debate over repeal; they only cared if their fellow unit members could work together to “get the job done.” What mattered to these Service members was a cohesive team that focused on the mission and a common enemy. “All I care about is can you carry a gun, can you walk the post, as far as people in my unit.”142 “As a team or a corps, I am only as good as the rest of my team. Cohesion is the heart of the matter. Given a task, a homosexual and a heterosexual can probably accomplish it the same way, so it should not have too much of an effect on getting the task done.”143 “As Battalion Commander for a unit that recently completed 12-month combat deployment to Iraq, I can say unequivocally that gay/lesbian Soldiers are integrated across our force, at the lowest tactical levels, with no negative operational impacts. In fact, my unit was far better, particularly technically and from a leadership perspective, with these Soldiers in positions of operational and organizational signiﬁcance.”144 “I think it’s morally wrong but as long as the mission gets done and done right, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.”145
138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. Service member, Online Inbox, 2010. Service member, Conﬁdential Communication Mechanism, 2010. Service member, Conﬁdential Communication Mechanism, 2010. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. Service member, Online Inbox, 2010. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

57

“What does it matter if they can do the job if you are gay or straight?”146 “This is America.” Some Service members expressed a view that repeal is not only the “right thing” to do, but is one of the freedoms for which they ﬁght and die. Others believed all Americans should have the right to serve their country, including gay men and lesbians: “I believe that this policy/law change will only enhance who we are as a great nation. We claim to be free when other nations have already accepted this factor into their environment. This is only something that will help us promote peace and implement non-prejudicial acts rather than hatred.”147 “Gays and lesbians have been serving in the Armed Forces since the inception of our country. They love this country just as much as heterosexuals. They have been ‘outed’ while serving, humiliated in front of their peers, beaten up and given dishonorable discharges in the past (and even present day). This must end. This is NOT what our country is about.”148 “I love America for its tolerance. I am willing to be a KIA [Killed In Action] because I think America values equality and civil liberties. It would be great if the institution I served in mirrored exactly these ideals.”149 “We need everyone willing and able to serve.” Other Service members spoke of repeal in pragmatic terms and stated the military simply needs everyone who is willing and able to serve. Others expressed concern that we had degraded readiness by kicking out qualiﬁed and experienced warriors out of the military. “Please repeal the act. We need all available men and women who are willing to serve their country, no matter what their sexual orientation is.”150 “As it is, there aren’t enough good people in the military, and we shouldn’t turn people away because of things they do in their private life.”151 “We have lost immeasurable talent and dedication with those discharged or never allowed to enter military service.”152

“Times are changing.” Some Service members viewed the issue of repeal as a “generational” one with the younger generation being more accepting of open homosexuality. Cadets and midshipmen in particular told us that serving with a gay man or lesbian is “no big deal.” “Kids growing up now, it is not a big deal. In this room the average age is 30. The values most of us were raised with are different. You look at younger guys born in the 80s, some of these guys their tolerance level is different than mine is.”153 “With the younger generation it may not be as big of a deal. The percentage is a lot higher with acceptance instead of 45 and older. The military population is conservative.”154 “Younger generations are more open. It’s more of the younger generation’s decision.”155 “There are kids in society who accept this type of thing now. It is not like when we were kids. They don’t have a problem with them [gay people].”156 “It won’t be such a big deal.” Some Service members expressed a view that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would be a “non-event.” These members saw no realistic concerns over privacy. Some gay and lesbian Service members predicted repeal would have minimal impact because Service members may be reluctant to serve openly. “There is no need for separate showers. People will get over it when people realize that they are not being hit on or approached in the shower.”157 “About separate facilities: we all went to college and stayed in dorms, we are all adult now and we have accepted it.”158 “I think if it is lifted not a lot of members will come out. They are your coworkers and things will stay where they are. If we didn’t know you were gay by now, it is unlikely that you will tell us.”159 “We’ve done it before; we can do it again.” Some Service members pointed out that lessons learned from the racial and gender integration of the U.S. military apply to repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
153 154 155 156 157 158 159 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

59

“This is not the ﬁrst time we have had to tackle this issue. It was done before with two other groups of people; there were issues and problems that had to be overcome. This has happened before and will likely happen again. We have a blueprint on how to handle it—we handled it before, we’ll handle it again.”160 “It’s going to take time to get used to it. It took time to get used to women, African Americans. Any time there is a prejudice it takes generations to disappear. Some people will have issues, but as long as they are professional then it doesn’t matter.”161 “This is an equality issue, and who doesn’t deserve equal rights? We’ve done it before with African Americans, and we have done it before with females. We can do it again. As brothers and sisters in arms, we stand and ﬁght not only for our country, but for one another.”162 “I recommend repeal of DADT and believe Service members will make it work, just as they made it work when laws were changed to allow non-whites and females to serve their nation honorably and with pride.”163 “Take a knife out of my back.” Gay and lesbian Service members shared with us through online inbox entries and conﬁdential online communications how Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell places a heavy burden on their shoulders. They explained how repeal would mean the end of living a lie for them and their families. Gay and lesbian Service members also expressed how repeal would increase their personal effectiveness and promote unit cohesion, because they can now be honest with their fellow unit members. “I doubt I would run down the street yelling ‘I’m out’; but it would take a knife out of my back I have had for a long time. You have no idea what it is like to have to serve in silence...”164 “It is hard to explain to a child why their parents can’t hold hands or attend school or unit functions together the way other families do. It also places a strain on my relationship when I am deployed since I am afraid that someone will ﬁnd the picture I carry in my shirt pocket or ﬁnd a letter from my family. It also makes it very difﬁcult and uncomfortable to explain to someone why I wear a wedding ring since I am not married.”165

“I deploy twice per year and sacriﬁce a lot of time away from my very legitimate family to serve this country. I have less than a handful of military friends because of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. If I invite someone to my home for a barbeque or any other activity that straight families take for granted, it makes my sexual orientation too obvious.”166 By and large, gay and lesbian Service members expressed the view that they would be relieved to no longer have to hide the existence of their partners and looked forward to the opportunity to share their work lives with their families. “Every time there is a family event, there are people left out, because of who they are with; they are not allowed to bring their family with them. The fact that they are same sex does not negate the fact that they love and are proud of the support that their partner has given them, the same support that a wife or husband would give their spouse in the military. The conventional family is recognized and able to be thanked for their support, as every military member knows, we could not do what we do and go where we go without the support of our spouse or partner.”167 “We can do this; just provide clear guidance and strong leadership.” Many commanders and senior enlisted personnel simply expressed a desire in the case of repeal to receive clear guidance and leadership from the chain of command. “I can’t pick and choose what I enforce; I have strong religious beliefs but I have to leave them behind and do my job; if I can’t do that, I’ve got to leave the Army.”168 “It is important to lead by example. Even if we disagree we have to follow rules.”169 “We must ensure we are ready for this change with the necessary policies and practices to provide a safe, tolerant, supportive environment for all who serve.”170 “In the military, you are given orders and you drive on. This policy needs to come from the top, with speciﬁc guidelines. Soldiers will then adapt, as they always do.”171

VII THE SURVEY RESULTS
In the previous section, we provided a sense of what we heard through our qualitative engagements with the force. In this section, we provide a summary of Service members’ responses to the quantitative tools used by the Working Group: the pair of surveys conducted by Westat. The Service members’ survey was one of the largest surveys in the history of the military, with 115,052 responses. In addition, we received 44,266 responses to the spouse survey. The results of these surveys constitute a signiﬁcant component of our assessment. We highlight here the responses to particular questions that we believe are representative of the overall picture. Appendix C of the report contains results for all of the questions on the Service member survey, with results broken down by Service; Appendix D of the report contains results for the spouse survey.172 There, we let the survey results speak for themselves. Before reviewing the survey highlights, we make several points: First, we did not “poll” the military or conduct a referendum on the overall question of whether to repeal the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy. That was not our mission, nor are military policy decisions made by referendum of Service members. Our primary mission was to assess the impact of a repeal, should it occur to military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness. To accomplish that task we focused the survey on those topics. Second, many of the survey questions were devised in response to concerns raised frequently by Service members in information exchange forums and focus group sessions. For example, the questions about privacy and living arrangements were asked in response to the concerns expressed by a large number of Service members in our discussions. Third, as described in section V, the survey sample of Service members was designed to ensure adequate representation in terms of Service, active/reserve component, rank, and gender, among other factors. The overall sample was almost 400,000 Service members (split evenly among active duty and reserve component forces). The response rate for this survey (28% overall), as a whole and by Service, was typical for surveys within the Department of Defense.173 The survey sample of military spouses was similarly designed to ensure adequate representation in terms of Service and active/reserve component. The overall sample was just over 150,000 spouses (70,000 active duty and 80,000 reserve component). The response rate for the spouse survey (29% overall) was also typical for this type of survey within the military community.174 The results of each survey were “weighted,” consistent with industry

172

The entirety of the survey results broken down by all subpopulations is contained in Volume 1 of the Westat Survey Report, published in conjunction with this report. 173 Defense Manpower Data Center, “DADT,” 1. 174 Defense Manpower Data Center, “DADT,” 1.

63

standard practices, to more accurately reﬂect the make-up of the force by accounting for the intentional oversampling of certain low-response groups (e.g., junior enlisted). The 115,052 responses to the Service member resulted in a margin of error of less than ±1%. The spouse survey margin of error was similar. We highlight the following:

Impact of Repeal on Cohesion
The Service member survey asked a number of questions on Service members’ views about the effect of repeal on unit cohesion, including task and social cohesion. Task cohesion is a unit’s ability to work together effectively, whereas social cohesion is a unit’s ability to get along and trust one another. Overall, 70–76% of Service members said repeal would have a positive, a mixed, or no effect on aspects of task cohesion. Similarly, 67–78% of Service members said repeal would have a positive, mixed, or no effect on aspects of social cohesion. Table 2 summarizes Service members’ responses to questions on aspects of task cohesion; Table 3 does so for questions on aspects of social cohesion. Table 2. Service Members’ Perceptions of Impact of a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on Task Cohesion
Question 68 & 69. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how would it affect…
Task Cohesion
Q u e s t i o n 6 8 a . H ow S e r v i c e members in your immediate u n i t wo r k t o g e t h e r t o g e t t h e job done? Q u e s t i o n 6 8 b . H ow S e r v i c e members in your immediate unit pull together to perform as a team? Question 69c . The extent to which leaders in your i m m e d i a t e u n i t h ave t h e skills and abilities to lean unit members into combat?

Positively / Very Positively
18 . 4 %

Equally Positively & Negatively
32 .1%

No Effect

Negatively / Very Negatively
29.6 %

19 . 9 %

19 . 4 %

31. 8 %

19 . 3 %

29.5 %

19 . 4 %

32 .7 %

24 .1%

23 . 9 %

64

Table 3. Service Members’ Perceptions of Impact of a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on Social Cohesion
Question 68 & 69. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how would it affect…
Social Cohesion
Q u e s t i o n 6 8 c . H ow S e r v i c e members in your immediate unit trust each other? Q u e s t i o n 6 8 d . H ow m u c h Ser vice members in your immediate unit really care about each other? Question 69a. The extent to which Service members in your immediate unit c an get help from their leaders on personal problems Question 69b. The extent to which leaders in your immediate unit trust their unit members? Question 69d. The extent to which leaders in your immediate unit care about their unit members?

Positively / Very Positively
18 .1%

Equally Positively & Negatively
31. 2 %

No Effect

Negatively / Very Negatively
3 3 .1%

17. 6 %

18 .1%

33.6 %

18 . 4 %

30.0 %

20 . 0 %

33.5%

21. 9 %

24 .7 %

19 . 2 %

33.8 %

21.7 %

25 . 4 %

20 . 3 %

34.6 %

22 .7 %

22 . 4 %

Impact of Repeal on Unit Effectiveness
The survey also asked a number of questions in a variety of different ways to solicit views about the impact of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on unit effectiveness and the overall ability to get the job done. Because not all Service members have the same experience with deployed or combat situations, the survey asked questions about unit effectiveness based on the experience each Service member said they had in different environments. Service members without combat deployment experience since September 11, 2001, were asked how, if at all, repeal would affect their unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission “on a day-to-day” basis.” Almost 80% said repeal would have a positive, a mixed, or no effect.175 Service members with combat experience during this period were asked slightly different questions. When asked how, if at all, repeal would affect their unit’s effectiveness “in a ﬁeld environment or out at sea,” 56% said it would have a positive, mixed, or no effect, and 44% said it would have a negative effect. However, when speciﬁcally asked about the
175 Calculated as the sum of the responses “very positive,” “positive,” “no effect,” and “equally positive and negative effect.”

65

effect “in intense combat situations” or “when a crisis or negative event happens that affects your unit” the levels of those that predicted a negative effect went down—approximately 30% said that repeal would have a negative effect, and approximately 70% said it would have a positive, mixed, or no effect on their unit’s effectiveness. Table 4 below summarizes these responses. Table 4. Service Members’ Perceptions of Impact of a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on Unit Effectiveness
Question 70 & 71. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission…
Very Positive / Positive Equally Positive and Negative No Effect Very Negative / Negative

Note: Question 70 was asked only of Service members who have never been deployed or who have not been deployed into a combat environment since September 11, 2001. Question 71 was asked only of Service members who have been deployed into a combat environment since September 11, 2001.

Privacy/Living Arrangements
Given the large number of Service members who raised privacy issues in large group and focus group sessions, the survey devoted a number of questions in the survey to privacy concerns—in particular, bathroom facilities and living and berthing arrangements—to gauge how Service members thought they would handle these issues if repeal occurred. These questions were also asked in order to understand more fully potential impacts on social cohesion within a unit.

66

In general, when it came to bathrooms with open bay showers, almost a third (29%) of Service members said they would do nothing different in the event of repeal; 11% said they would address the matter directly with the gay or lesbian Service member; and 26% said they would take a shower at a different time. Meanwhile, 19% said they would seek guidance from a chaplain, mentor, or leader, and 7% said they would do “something else.” (See Table 5.) Service members responded similarly when asked about living and berthing arrangements. (See Table 6.) Service members that answered that they would do “something else” to either question were given the opportunity to describe in their own words what they would do; less than 0.1% of all Service members indicated that violence of any kind might occur.176 Table 5. Service Members’ Likely Actions if Assigned to Share Open Bay Shower Facilities With a Gay or Lesbian Service Member
Question 90. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are assigned to bathroom facilities with an open bay shower that someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member also used, which are you most likely to do?
Overall
Ta ke n o a c t i o n U s e t h e s h owe r a t a d i f f e r e n t t i m e t h a n t h e S e r v i c e m e m b e r I t h o u g h t t o b e g ay o r l e s b i a n D i s c u s s h ow we e x p e c t e a c h o t h e r t o b e h ave a n d c o n d u c t o u r s e l ve s Ta l k t o a c h a p l a i n , m e n t o r, o r l e a d e r a b o u t h ow t o h a n d l e t h e s i t u a t i o n Ta l k t o a l e a d e r t o s e e i f I h a d o t h e r o p t i o n s Something Else D o n ’ t K n ow 29.4 % 25 . 8 % 11. 0 % 1. 3 % 17.7 % 7. 0 % 7. 9 %

CRWG, “Summary of Open Ended Responses From the Service Member Survey,” white paper, September 30, 2010.

67

Impact of Repeal on Unit Readiness
Service members were asked to assess their current readiness, as well as how repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would affect their personal readiness and their unit’s readiness. With regard to personal readiness, 67% of Service members said that repeal would have a positive or no effect; 22% said the effect would be equally positive as negative, and 12% said repeal would have a negative effect. In addition, 58% said repeal would have a positive or no effect on their ability to train well; 21% said the effect would be equally positive as negative; and 21% said repeal would have a negative effect. The responses about effects at the unit level, as opposed to at the personal level, were somewhat more negative. For example, with regard to their unit’s ability to train well together, 31% said that repeal would have a negative impact. (See Table 7.) Table 7. Service Member Perceptions of Impact of a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on Military Readiness
Question 75. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how would it affect…
Positively / Very Positively Personal Readiness
Yo u r p e r s o n a l readiness Yo u r a b i l i t y t o t r a i n we l l 7.1% 7. 3 % 60.0 % 51.1% 21. 5 % 20 . 8 % 11. 5 % 20 . 8 %

Impact of Repeal on Recruitment
The Services rely on referrals—from family, friends, and current or former Service members—for about a third of new recruits. Overall, nearly one-half (47%) of Service members said that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would have no effect on their willingness to recommend military service to a family member or close friend; 6% said that it would have positive effect; 10% said it would have a mixed effect; and 27% said it would have a negative effect.

68

Table 8. Service Member Willingness to Recommend Military Service to a Family Member or Close Friend if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is Repealed
Question 80. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how, if at all, will it affect your willingness to recommend to a family member or close friend that he or she join the military?
Overall
P o s i t i ve l y E q u a l l y a s p o s i t i ve l y a s n e g a t i ve l y No effect N e g a t i ve l y D o n ’ t k n ow 6.3 % 9.9 % 46.5 % 27. 3 % 10 . 0 %

Service members were asked to rate the three factors they consider most important when deciding whether to remain in the military.177 “Job satisfaction,” “Retirement beneﬁts,” “Current economic situation and civilian job availability,” “Pay and allowances/Bonuses,” and “To serve and defend my country” were each listed by over one-quarter of respondents. Of these, all were consistently rated as more important than repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in

177

See Appendix C, Question 33.

69

deciding whether to remain in the military.178 Overall, 48% of Service members told us that all the factors they listed are more important to their decision to stay or leave the military than repeal, while only 8% said repeal was more important than anything else. (See Table 10.) Table 10. Service Members’ Assessment of the Relative Importance of Repeal in Their Decision of Whether to Stay in the Military
Question 82. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the repeal, would your top three decision factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military?
Overall
All Fac tors More Impor tant than Repeal All Fac tors Equally Impor tant as Repeal All Fac tors Less Impor tant than Repeal Some more, Some less Important as Repeal 48.0 % 16 . 0 % 7. 6 % 28 . 5 %

Impact of Repeal on Morale
In addition, the survey also asked questions about morale. In question 73, Service members were asked how their level of morale would be affected if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed. Consistent with responses to similar questions about effects on unit effectiveness, cohesion, and readiness, 62% of Service members responded that repeal would have a positive, mixed, or no effect on their morale, while 28% said it would have a negative impact on their morale. Table 11. Service Member Perception of Impact of Repeal on Morale
Question 73. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would your level of morale be affected?
Overall
P o s i t i ve l y / Ve r y P o s i t i ve l y E q u a l l y a s p o s i t i ve l y a s n e g a t i ve l y No effect N e g a t i ve l y / Ve r y N e g a t i ve l y D o n ’ t k n ow 4.8 % 13 . 2 % 43.6 % 27. 9 % 10 . 5 %

178

See Appendix C, Questions 82a, 82d, 82f, 82m, and 82n.

70

Those Who Have Already Served With Someone They Believe is Gay
Service members were asked on the survey whether they had ever worked with a leader, co-worker, or subordinate they believed to be gay or lesbian in their career. 75% of Service members answered “yes” to at least one of these questions.179 For example, 69% of Service members said that they had worked with a co-worker that they believed to be gay or lesbian. (See Table 12.) When asked if they were currently serving with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian, more than a third (36%) answered yes. (See Table 13.) Table 12. Service Members Who Have Served With Leaders They Believe to be Gay or Lesbian
Question 36. In your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a co-worker you believed to be homosexual?
Overall
Ye s No 69.3 % 3 0 .7 %

Table 13. Percentage of Service Members Currently Serving With Someone They Believe to be Gay or Lesbian
Question 34. Do you currently serve with a male or female Service member you believe to be homosexual?
Overall
Ye s No 36.0 % 64.0 %

Thus, a large number of Service members report that they have already had the experience of serving in a unit with a person they believed to be gay or lesbian. This is consistent with what we heard in large group information exchange forums. In response to the question, “How many of you have already had the experience of serving in a unit with a person you believed to be gay or lesbian?”, in a group of 150–300 Service members, typically 80% or more of those present raised their hands.180 Those Service members who reported that they are currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian were more likely to answer that repeal would have a positive, mixed, or no effect on unit cohesion, unit effectiveness, unit readiness, recruiting, retention, and family readiness. For example, when asked how repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would affect their immediate unit’s effectiveness in an intense combat situation, 74% of those
179 CRWG analysis of 2010 DoD Comprehensive Review Survey of Active Duty and Reserve Service Members, 2010. 180 CRWG analysis of information exchange forum notes, 2010.

71

currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian reported the impact would be positive, equally positive and negative, or have no effect, while 26% reported that it would have a negative effect.181 Those not currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian were more negative in their predictions: 33% of these Service members predicted that repeal would have a negative impact on unit effectiveness in an intense combat situation.182 Among Service members who said that they are currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian, the portion who said repeal would have positive, mixed, or no effect on aspects of unit cohesion was 3–8% percentage points higher than those who are not currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian. With regard to privacy and living arrangements, Service members currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian were more likely to say they would take no action or handle the situation on their own. Overall, among those Service members who report that they are currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian, the portion answering that the effects of repeal would be negative was generally around 6% percentage points lower than for those who report that they are not currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian. Table 14 compares these responses across a selection of questions related to unit effectiveness, unit cohesion, and unit readiness.

Table 14. Perceptions of Impact of a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on Unit Effectiveness, Unit Cohesion, and Unit Readiness by Whether Currently Serving With Someone They Believe to be Gay or Lesbian
If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how would it affect…
Currently Serve w/ Gay or Lesbian Unit Effectiveness
Q u e s t i o n 71a . Yo u r i m m e d i a t e u n i t ’s ef fec tiveness at completing its mission in a field environment or out at sea Q u e s t i o n 71c . Yo u r i m m e d i a t e u n i t ’s ef fec tiveness at completing its mission in an intense combat situation

Positively / Very Positively

Equally Positively & Negatively

No Effect

Negatively / Very Negatively

Ye s No Ye s No

15 .1 %

25.9 %

21. 6 %

37. 5 %

9.3 %

2 5 .7 %

17. 0 %

4 8 .1 %

16 . 0 %

3 0 .1 %

27. 8 %

26 . 0 %

10 . 3 %

32.2 %

24 . 4 %

33.2%

Unit Cohesion
Question 68 a . How Service members in your immediate unit work together to get the job done? Question 68 c . How Service members in your immediate unit trust each other?

Note: “Currently Serve w/ Gay or Lesbian” reﬂects Service members’ responses to question 34: “Do you currently serve with a male or female Service member you believe to be homosexual?”

73

Army, Marine Corps, and Combat Arms
Among the Services, the Marines were consistently more negative in their responses about the effect of repeal. The combat arms communities in both the Army and the Marine Corps were also more negative about the effect of repeal than others in their Services.183 For example, as discussed earlier, approximately 44% of all Service members said that their unit’s effectiveness “in a ﬁeld environment or out at sea” would be negatively impacted by repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Nearly 60% of respondents in the Marine Corps and in Army combat arms said they believed there would be a negative impact on their unit’s effectiveness in this context; among Marine combat arms the number was 67%. (See Table 15.) Likewise, when asked how repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would impact the readiness of their immediate unit, 21% of Service members overall said that it would have a negative impact. Among Marine Corps respondents this number was 32%; among Army combat arms it was 35%; and among Marine combat arms 43%. (See Table 15.) Table 15. Army, Marine Corps, and Army and Marine Combat Arms Perceptions of Impact of a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on Unit Readiness
Question 75b. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit’s readiness?
Overall
P o s i t i ve l y / Ve r y p o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y a s n e g a t i ve l y N e g a t i ve l y / Ve r y N e g a t i ve l y No effect 6.8 % 25.8 % 21. 2 % 4 6 .1%

Army
7. 4 % 25 . 8 % 23 . 8 % 42 . 9 %

Marine Corps
5.3 % 27. 4 % 31. 8 % 35.5%

Army Combat Arms
5.2% 23 . 9 % 3 5 .1% 35.8 %

Marine Combat Arms
3.5% 24 . 5 % 43.5% 28 . 5 %

The responses of Marines and of Army and Marine combat arms were similarly more negative than the force overall in response to questions about unit cohesion. For example, question 68a asked Service members about the impact of repeal on their unit’s ability to “work together”—an aspect of task cohesion. While slightly under 30% of Service members as a whole predicted repeal would have a negative impact, that number was 43% among the Marine Corps, 48% among Army combat arms, and 58% among Marine combat arms. (See Table 16.)
183 The Working Group invited the Services to further analyze Service-speciﬁc data from the Service member survey data. We understand, based on this Service analysis, that this ﬁnding generally applies to combat warfare communities in all Services.

74

Table 16. Army, Marine Corps, and Army and Marine Combat Arms Perceptions of Impact of a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on Task Cohesion
Question 68a. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... How Service members in your immediate unit work together to get the job done?
Overall
P o s i t i ve l y / Ve r y p o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y a s n e g a t i ve l y N e g a t i ve l y / Ve r y n e g a t i ve l y No Effect 18 . 4 % 32 .1% 29.6 % 19 . 9 %

Army
18 . 9 % 31. 5 % 31. 9 % 17. 8 %

Marine Corps
12 .7 % 31.1% 42 . 8 % 13 . 4 %

Army Combat Arms
13 . 2 % 26 .1% 47. 5 % 13 . 3 %

Marine Combat Arms
8 .7 % 24 . 4 % 57. 5 % 9.4%

Question 68c asked Service members about the impact of repeal on the trust between unit members—a part of social cohesion. Overall, 33% of Service members predicted a negative impact on trust between unit members; this number was 47% for the Marine Corps, 49% for Army combat arms, and 60% for Marine combat arms. (See Table 17.) Table 17. Army, Marine Corps, and Army and Marine Combat Arms Perceptions of Impact of a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on Social Cohesion (Trust)
Question 68c. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... How Service members in your immediate unit trust each other?
Overall
P o s i t i ve l y / Ve r y P o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y a s n e g a t i ve l y N e g a t i ve l y / Ve r y N e g a t i ve l y No Effect 18 .1% 31. 2 % 3 3 .1% 17. 6 %

Army
18 . 6 % 30.3 % 35.5% 15 . 6 %

Marine Corps
11. 8 % 29.5 % 47. 3 % 11. 4 %

Army Combat Arms
13 . 6 % 26 .1% 48.9 % 11. 3 %

Marine Combat Arms
8.3% 24 .7 % 59 .7 % 7. 4 %

The Marine Corps, Army combat arms, and Marine combat arms also differed signiﬁcantly from the force overall in the portion that reported that they are currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian, and that reported that they are

75

serving in gender-integrated units. While more than a third of the force as a whole said they are currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian, around one-quarter of Army combat arms and Marines believe they are doing so. (See Table 18.) Fewer still Marine combat arms personnel report that they are serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian. Table 18. Percentage of Army, Marine Corps, and Army and Marine Combat Arms Service Members Currently Serving With Someone They Believe to be Gay or Lesbian
Question 34. Do you currently serve with a male or female Service member you believe to be homosexual?
Overall
Ye s No 36.0 % 64.0 %

Army
37. 6 % 62 . 4 %

Marine Corps
24 . 9 % 75 .1%

Army Combat Arms
26 .7 % 73 . 3 %

Marine Combat Arms
20 . 0 % 80.0 %

In addition, while 80% of the overall force indicated that it serves in units with both men and women, 63% of Marines report that they serve in mixed gender units. Additionally, only 43% of Army combat arms personnel and 30% of Marine combat arms personnel indicate that they serve in units that include both men and women. In general, men who are currently serving in gender-integrated units are less likely to predict a negative impact of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: 28% compared to 39% among men who are serving in male-only units.184 Table 19. Percentage of Army, Marine Corps, and Army and Marine Combat Arms Service Members Currently Serving in Units With Both Men and Women
Question 4. Does your immediate unit include both men and women?
Overall
Ye s No 80.0 % 20.0 %

Open-Ended Responses
Finally, Service members were given the opportunity, in question 103 of the survey, to provide a response in their own words about “the impacts to you, your family, your immediate unit, or your Service if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed.” Comments were provided by 47,318 Service members. The Working Group reviewed all of these responses and found that

78

they expressed many of the same sentiments—on all sides of the issue—raised by Service members in the Working Group’s other engagements with the force. In addition, with the assistance of the Defense Manpower Data Center, the Working Group compared the open-ended comments provided by Service members with their responses to other survey questions regarding impact of repeal. This analysis revealed that Service members’ open-ended comments were by and large consistent with their responses to the other questions in the survey. For example, Service members whose responses to questions about impact of repeal were predominately negative tended to provide open-ended comments that were negative. These Service members’ open-ended comments most often expressed concerns about ﬂamboyant gay men in the Service, repeal tarnishing the image of the military, and privacy in living facilities and showers. Similarly, Service members whose responses to questions about impact of repeal were predominately positive tended to provided open-ended comments that were also positive. These Service members’ open-ended comments most often expressed that sexual orientation is irrelevant to a Service member’s ability to do the job, that gay and lesbian Service members have a right to serve openly, that they have a right to serve without fear of being separated, and the like. Meanwhile, those Service members who indicated on the survey that repeal would have no effect provided open-ended comments similar to those who indicated a positive effect. The most prevalent comments were that sexual orientation is irrelevant to a Service member’s ability to do the job, that gay and lesbian Service members have a right to serve openly, and that repeal is acceptable so long as good order and discipline is maintained. Those Service members who indicated that repeal would have equally mixed positive and negative effects provided open-ended comments along the same lines, mixed positive and negative. The most prevalent comments included: that sexual orientation is irrelevant to a Service member’s ability to do the job, concerns about privacy in living facilities and showers, that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is working and does not need to be changed, that repeal is acceptable so long as good order and discipline is maintained, and the like.

I. II. III. IV. V. VI.

79

VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII.

80

VIII LESSONS FROM HISTORY
Although there are fundamental differences between matters of race, gender and sexual orientation, we believe the racial integration of the U.S. military in the 1940s and 1950s, and the gender integration of the military that began in earnest in the 1970s, present some useful historical lessons. We discuss these lessons here.

Racial Integration of the U.S. Military
As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that, contrary to popular belief, President Harry S. Truman did not simply and abruptly order the Military Services to end racial segregation in 1948. Calls to study the issue began around 1945; Truman’s 1948 Executive Order declared that “equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin” was “the policy of the President,” and established a Committee which then took two years to study the issue.185 The Services adopted integration plans in 1949 and 1950. However, it was not until 1953 that 95% of African-American soldiers were serving in integrated units and not until the 1970s that Navy ships were fully integrated.186 During World War II and in the immediate post-War era, some of America’s most admired public ﬁgures and war heroes of that period expressed concern for permitting Service members of different races to serve together. Like the discussion today, the concerns then centered on military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and morale. In 1941, Admiral Chester Nimitz stated: “One does not install a part in a machine, no matter how excellent that part may be in itself, unless it will ﬁt and work smoothly with other parts. That, frankly, covers the Navy Department’s attitude on this question. Negro ofﬁcers aboard ship would form a small unassimilable minority which, despite anything we could do, would inevitably form a source of discord that would be harmful to the service.”187

185

“Records of the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services (Record Group 220),” Harry S. Truman Library and Museum, accessed November 19, 2010, http://www.trumanlibrary.org/hstpaper/fahy.htm. 186 Matthew Cashdollar, “Not Yes or No, But What If: Implications of Open Homosexuality in the Military,” in Attitudes Aren’t Free: Thinking Deeply About Diversity in the US Armed Forces, eds. Jim Parco and David Levy, (Maxwell Air Force Base: Air University Press, 2010), 169. 187 Erin R. Mahan, “Racial Integration of the Armed Forces: Information Paper for Considering Open Sevice Policy,” August 9, 2010, 7.

81

Likewise, Admiral Nimitz stated “The policy [of limiting black Sailors to the messman’s branch] was instituted in the interest of harmony and efﬁciency aboard ship after many years of experience.”188 In 1941, Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall contended that racial segregation was working and should be continued, and warned that “experiments within the Army in the solution of social problems are fraught with danger to efﬁciency, discipline, or morale,”189 and General Henry “Hap” Arnold, commander of the Army Air Corps, wrote in a 1940 internal Army memo, “Negro pilots cannot be used in our present Air Force since this would result in having Negro ofﬁcers serving over white enlisted men. This would create an impossible social problem.”190 Much of the opposition to racial integration of the Military Services stemmed from what we now know to be blatant stereotype. In 1946, the Army’s Assistant Chief of Staff for Organization and Training, Major General Idwal Edwards, warned that the Army must recognize the “ineptitude and limited capacity of the Negro soldier.”191 Others even suggested that segregation actually beneﬁted the black soldier. Most notably, in 1948 then Army Chief of Staff General Dwight D. Eisenhower testiﬁed before a Senate hearing that segregation protected blacks because “In general, the Negro is less educated…and if you make a complete amalgamation, what you are going to have in every company the Negro is going to be relegated to the minor jobs, and he is never going to get his promotion.”192 Meanwhile, opinion polls and surveys of the military then, though not as extensively used in the 1940s as today, showed solid opposition to the idea of racial integration of the military. In a 1946 survey of 2,376 Army and Army Air Forces white enlisted men, over 80% responded that “white and Negro soldiers should not work, train, and live [eat or sleep] together.”193 Similarly, 80% of white ofﬁcers at that time reported that they would not like being assigned to an integrated unit (shared working, training, and living conditions), 9% were in favor of such an assignment, and 10% were undecided.194 Within a few years during and after World War II, as African Americans had an opportunity to prove themselves alongside their white counterparts in integrated situations, attitudes began to change. During World War II, the number of African Americans in the Army increased dramatically, from 4,435 in 1940 to over 700,000 by September 1945.195 Integration of the other Military Services occurred on a limited and experimental basis
188 189 190 191 192 193 Mahan, “Racial,” 7. Mahan, “Racial,” 6. Commander of Army Air Corps, Memo, “Employment of Negro Personnel in Air Corps Units,” May 31, 1940. Mahan, “Racial,” 6. Mahan, “Racial,” 7. Army-Air Force TI&E Division, Special Memorandum No. 40-309C, “Supplemental report on attitudes of white enlisted men toward serving with Negro enlisted men, based on a study made in November 1946,” 1949. 194 Troop Information & Education Division, Troop Attitude Research Branch, “Attitudes of Ofﬁcers and Enlisted Men Toward Certain Minority Groups,” July 14, 1947, 5, in RG 330, ASD (Manpower, Personnel & Reserve) Research Division, Surveys on Troop Attitudes, 1942, June 1955, Report No 1005. 195 Mahan, “Racial,” 6.

82

toward the end of World War II and in the post-war period. Both the Navy and the Army Air Force experimented with integrated units because of morale and undermanning problems. In 1943, the Navy’s Special Programs Unit proposed a plan to assign black crew members to predominantly white crews aboard ships. The experiment began in 1944 and was successful to the point that racial restrictions were lifted in Navy general-service positions. Thus, the Navy was partially integrated three years before President Truman’s executive order.196 The post-war Air Force went through a similar process due to practical problems of obtaining enough qualiﬁed pilots for the all-black 332nd Fighter Wing, the famed Tuskegee Airmen. Initially, the idea met resistance but moved forward after Truman’s 1948 executive order.197 The Army and Marine Corps moved more slowly toward racial integration. However, when the personnel shortages of the Korean War necessitated integrated units, Army ﬁeld ofﬁcers placed white and black soldiers side by side.198 By the end of World War II, opposition to racial integration began to erode. In 1944, the commandant of the Marines Corps, Lieutenant General Alexander Vandegrift declared, “The Negro Marines are no longer on trial. They are Marines. Period.”199 By 1949, attitudes toward integrated units were improving, but opposition to integration still existed. In a 1949 survey of 1151 white enlisted men, 61% opposed full integration (work, train, and live together), compared to 80% in 1946; 32% opposed partial integration (working and training together but separate living and eating facilities) compared to over 70% in 1946. This survey also revealed that white soldiers who had worked with black soldiers were less opposed to integration than white soldiers who had only served in segregated units.200 Likewise, following the 1948 Executive Order, many in military leadership accepted the new policy and emphasized the importance of leadership in successful implementation of integration efforts. Army Major General Idwal Edwards, who two years earlier warned of the Negro’s “ineptitude and limited capacity,” stated in 1948 that any problems implementing the Commander-in-Chief’s direction will be “minimized if commanders give the implementation of this policy their personal attention and exercise positive control.”201 By the time of the Korean War in 1951, Army studies proclaimed integration to be an unqualiﬁed success and stated that “integration enhances the effectiveness of the Army.”202 To be sure, racial integration of the U.S. military did not proceed smoothly, and following President Truman’s Executive Order racial discrimination, tension, and stereotypes
196 197 198 199 200 Morris J. MacGregor Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1985), 77–86. Mahan, “Racial,” 9. MacGregor, 428–434. Mahan, “Racial,” 8. Armed Forces I&E Division, Report No. 101-239, Morale Attitudes of Enlisted Men, May – June 1949, Attitudes Towards Integration of Negro Soldiers in the Army (Washington, DC, September 1949). 201 Mahan, “Racial,” 9. 202 Raymond B. Ansel, From Segregation to Desegregation: Blacks in the U.S. Army, 1703–1954 (Carlysle Barracks, PA: Army War College, 1990), 35–37.

83

did not magically evaporate within the ranks. Numerous individual incidents of racial hostility occurred, and racial tensions persisted for years in the military. During the civil rights and Vietnam eras in the 1960s and 1970s, there were outbreaks of racial violence within the military, reﬂecting the unrest in society at large. One such incident in July 1969, at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, led to the death of a Marine. In 1971, a race riot at Travis Air Force Base, California, involved hundreds of military members and spanned four days. Despite those incidents, the U.S. military is today widely regarded as one of the most integrated and diverse institutions in America; it is, for example, the community in America in which interracial marriage is most prevalent.203 In 1989, General Colin Powell, an African American, rose to become the most senior ofﬁcer in the U.S. military, twenty years before Barack Obama became the ﬁrst African-American President of the United States. In drawing parallels to racial integration in the 1940s and 1950s, there are similarities and differences between that experience and repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell today that we must acknowledge. First, skin color and sexual orientation are fundamentally different. That said, the concerns expressed in the 1940s about the effects of integration on unit cohesion and effectiveness sound much the same as those voiced in this debate. Second, there is a religious component to the issue of homosexuality that generally does not exist on matters of race. Many hold a sincere religious and moral belief that homosexuality is a sin. Many military chaplains today express opposition in religious terms to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military. By contrast, there was no signiﬁcant opposition to racial integration among military chaplains. In fact, the historical record of the period indicates that the military chaplain community, for the most part, encouraged followers along the path of racial integration. Third, the military began racial integration in the late 1940s and 1950s, in advance of American civilian society. In 1954, 95% of the Army was integrated, while buses and other public accommodations in cities such as Montgomery, Alabama, were not. As such, the military did serve as a social experiment in this regard for the rest of American society. By contrast, repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would mean treating gay men and lesbians in the military in a manner similar to what already exists in civilian workplaces, where there is no law that requires gay men and lesbians to hide their sexual orientation to keep their jobs. In that respect, repeal would not mean that the military is being used as a social experiment—the military would be following the rest of American society.

203 A study conducted by Jacobson analyzed the 1990 census (PUMS) and the Current Population Survey (CPS) from 1976 to 1998 and found that while interracial marriage is still rare in U.S. society, it is signiﬁcantly more prevalent in the U.S. military than in civilian society. (Cardell K. Jacobson and Tim B. Heaton, “Inter-group marriage and United States military service,” Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 33, 2003, 1–22.)

84

Fourth, the historical record strongly suggests that the opposition to racial integration at the outset was much wider and deeper than the present-day opposition to repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. As previously noted, opposition to integration among white enlisted soldiers in 1946 was as high as 80% of those surveyed. In 1949, one year after President Truman’s Executive Order, opposition to integrated living and working space among white enlisted soldiers was still over 60%. Fifth, many note the military is today being asked to consider repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell during a time of war. The fact is that the U.S. military took on racial integration in the midst of World War II, during the Korean War, and the beginning of the Cold War era; there is no reason to believe that today’s force could not successfully accomplish a similar change. Sixth, in terms of numbers, the size of the change brought about by racial integration of the U.S. military in the 1940s and 1950s was many times larger than any change that would that would result from a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. In 1945, there were 700,000 African Americans in the Army, out of a total force of over 8 million, or 9% of the force.204 Today, the active duty force is approximately 1.4 million Service members, and by all estimates the portion of gay and lesbian Service members is signiﬁcantly smaller.205 Further, race is an obvious identiﬁer; sexual orientation is not. Even if the law is repealed, it is likely that gay men and lesbians will continue to be discreet and private about their sexual orientation, as in civilian society. These similarities and differences aside, we believe the military’s successful experience in racial integration is a relevant chapter in American history for this basic reason: prior to integration, many of the most admired and respected military leaders predicted negative consequences for unit cohesion and morale that are very similar to the concerns we have heard in our engagements on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Those public fears of racial integration were based in large part on lack of experience and stereotype; likewise, surveys of the force at the time indicated widespread opposition. But, with strong leadership and a clear message, change occurred in large part without negative consequences for unit cohesion and effectiveness, and the military is a better institution for it today.

Gender Integration of the U.S. Military
Gender integration of the military has occurred at a slower pace than racial integration. The passage of the Armed Services Integration Act, which made women an ofﬁcial part of the military, occurred in 1948206 —the same year as President Truman’s Executive Order on
204 At its peak in 1945, the Army had approximately 8.2 million soldiers. (Kent Roberts Greenﬁeld, Robert R. Palmer, & Bell I. Wiley, “The Organization of Ground Combat Troops,” in US Army in World War II (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1992).) 205 RAND, 2010, 98–102­ . 206 Judith Bellafaire, “America’s Military Women—The Journey Continues,” Women in Military Service for America Memorial Foundation, accessed November 19, 2010, http://www.womensmemorial.org/Education/WHM982.html.

85

racial desegregation. But it took many years to expand the military occupational specialties open to women, and even today, certain specialties are restricted to men only. In 1948, women were limited to 2% of active duty personnel in each of the Services,207 and there were signiﬁcant limitations on the positions they could ﬁll. It was not until the late-1970s that the number and the roles of women in the military increased. This coincided with the introduction of the all-volunteer force, the end of the Vietnam War, projected shortages of military personnel, and the national debate over the Equal Rights Amendment and women’s rights generally. In 1976, women entered the Service academies for the ﬁrst time and ﬂight training was opened to women. In 1977, the Coast Guard assigned the ﬁrst woman to sea duty, and in 1978, women were allowed to serve on noncombatant ships in the Navy. In 1978, the Women’s Army Corps was disbanded and women were integrated into the regular Army. These events did not happen without resistance or controversy. As with racial integration, the initial concerns most frequently raised were predictions about negative impacts to unit cohesion and military effectiveness. Many leaders expressed concerns about women breaking from what they perceived to be traditional roles in society and questioned the physical capabilities of female Service members, especially in combat settings. For example, in an October 1943 memo, the Marine Corps’ director of Plans and Policies, Brigadier General C. Thomas stated, “The American Tradition is that a woman’s place is in the home,”208 and “Women do not take kindly to regimentation.”209 Similarly, three decades later in 1976, General William C. Westmoreland, who had retired four years earlier as Army Chief of Staff stated, “The purpose of West Point is to train combat ofﬁcers, and women are not physically able to lead in combat. Maybe you could ﬁnd one woman in 10,000 who could lead in combat, but she would be a freak, and we’re not running the Military Academy for freaks.”210 Surveys of Service members showed similar opposition. In 1977, over 80% of upperclass midshipmen preferred that the U.S. Naval Academy remained an all-male institution.211 In 1981 and 1982 U.S. Navy surveys of ships’ crews receiving women indicated concerns about discipline and cohesion. In these surveys, lower ranking enlisted personnel generally were more open to gender integrated crews, while the chief petty ofﬁcers and commissioned ofﬁcers generally opposed gender integration.212

Today women make up about 14% of the force and can serve in over 92% of the occupational specialties in the military.213 As time has gone by, many barriers have gone down. Women have been a part of combat ﬂying units since the early 1990s, and this summer women were allowed to attend submarine school for the ﬁrst time. Though all the Military Services (with the exception of the Coast Guard) retain some restrictions on assignments, women are, in fact, routinely exposed to the dangers of combat operations. This is exempliﬁed by the fact that combat casualty rates for women in Operation Iraqi Freedom are higher than in any combat operation in our nation’s history, and in 2005 the ﬁrst Silver Star was awarded to a woman for combat action.214 As with racial integration, the expansion of women’s roles in the military have not brought a degradation in military readiness, military effectiveness, or unit cohesion. At the same time, similar to racial integration, the integration of women has not been without incident, sometimes with national attention. In September 1991, the nation learned of the sexual misconduct of scores of Naval Ofﬁcers at the annual Tailhook Convention in Las Vegas. In 1996, the Army brought charges against 12 commissioned and non-commissioned male ofﬁcers for sexual assault of female trainees at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. More recently, the United States Air Force Academy faced national scrutiny when multiple cases of sexual assault and rape were reported by female cadets in 2003. These incidents have highlighted the need for military leaders to remain focused on integration implementation, including leadership, standards of conduct, and sexual assault and harassment prevention. Despite these ongoing concerns related to harassment and assault, it is clear that the introduction and integration of women into the force has made our military stronger. We note some differences and similarities between the advances in equality for women over the past six decades and repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. First, gender, as with race, is an obvious identifying characteristic, whereas, sexual orientation is not. Second, the religious and moral objections to women serving in the military, while stronger than religious objections to racial integration, do not rise to the same level as religious and moral objections concerning service by gay or lesbian individuals. While some may hold more traditional views on the roles of women based on religious or moral grounds, for the most part, women are welcome and successful at all levels of the chain of command. Third, although the integration of women has involved restrictions on military occupational specialties, including exclusion from ground combat units, we do not recommend
213 214 Defense Manpower Data Center, “Female Representation in the Active Component—1980, 1987, & 1990-2009,” Excel spreadsheet; OSD(P&R), e-mail communication to CRWG, November 12, 2010. Silver Star awarded to Army Sgt. Lee Ann Hester June, 2005 for valorous action in combat, defeating an enemy ambush on their convoy. There were four previous women who received the Silver Star in World War II for evacuating 42 patients from a ﬁeld hospital under ﬁre.

87

similar limitations for sexual orientation upon repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Gay men and lesbians are currently serving across the Services in combat and combat support roles, and we would expect them to continue to do so after repeal. Fourth, issues of proper relationships, public displays of affection, and harassment that arose after integrating women will certainly surface after repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Just as military leaders continue to be vigilant in addressing incidents of sexual harassment and assault, we must remain committed over the long term to leadership, professionalism, and respect, regardless of sexual orientation.

215 The Working Group undertook to research the policies of all nations around the world, by contacting embassies and researching foreign laws and policies. This research proved inconclusive in many instances. For many countries, the Working Group was unable to obtain deﬁnitive information on their policies. This exercise was further complicated by the fact that many countries may not have a formal military policy banning gays and lesbians or open service, but the countries’ civilian laws criminalize homosexuality or homosexual conduct as a general matter.

89

A number of nations have, over the past 20 years, transitioned to policies permitting open service by gays and lesbians. These countries include the United Kingdom (policy changed in 2000), Canada (1992), Australia (1992), Germany (2000), and Israel (1993). Some of these nations changed their policies in light of court decisions or other legal challenges. For instance, the United Kingdom and Canada lost court cases that then required them to rapid implement a change in their policies.216 In Germany217 and Australia, national defense leaders changed their policies to head off adverse outcome in pending court challenges. Working Group members interacted with senior military and civilian ofﬁcials from the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia to study conditions prior to policy change, how they handled the transition, and what impacts, if any, they observed. The Working Group focused on these three countries because they are in many ways culturally similar to the United States, and their militaries are, like the U.S. military, all-volunteer forces and of similar size proportionate to their national populations. These nations also work closely with U.S. forces in international operations. Researchers from RAND also spent time interviewing military ofﬁcials from Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Israel, and Australia. Prior to policy change in these countries, the rank and ﬁle military was generally opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve. Notably, both Canada and the United Kingdom conducted surveys of their military personnel, and both convened small study groups to examine the potential implications of change. The surveys conducted in Canada and the United Kingdom revealed that 60–65% of military personnel were opposed to bathing or sharing living quarters with gay men or lesbians,218 and 35–45% were opposed to working with gay men or lesbians.219 The most common arguments against policy change involved degradation of unit cohesion, concerns about personal privacy in bathing facilities and housing, moral opposition, and medical concerns related to HIV and AIDS—many of the same concerns expressed by U.S. Service members in the Working Group’s engagements with the force.220 The approach taken to the change in policy varied by country, but by and large they undertook what is best described as a minimalist approach. The usual pattern for implementing policy change started with an announcement of the policy change, sometimes accompanied by a statement from senior defense leaders, and followed by an information packet for the chain of command to explain how the policy worked and how it was to be enforced. In Israel and Germany, the announcement was simply a notice of the change embedded within a list of other policy changes. In RAND’s interviews, German ofﬁcials

noted that in many cases, military leaders were unaware of the impending change until after it had already occurred.221 These countries, by and large, describe their current policies regarding gay men and lesbians in military service as, in essence, a “non-policy.”222 By this, they mean that gay men and lesbians may serve openly not because they have a policy expressly permitting it, but because they have no speciﬁc policy on military service by gay men and lesbians at all. When the bans and restrictions were lifted in these countries (in the case of the United Kingdom, it was a ban on homosexuality in the military; in Australia, a prohibition on homosexual conduct; and in Canada, from 1988, restrictions on gays and lesbians serving in certain sensitive and leadership positions), they were most often replaced with general policies of non-discrimination or codes of conduct that addressed all military personnel without regard to their sexual orientation. The United Kingdom, for instance, issued a formal Code of Social Conduct that applies to all its military personnel, but does not speciﬁcally address homosexuality or sexual orientation.223 Israel’s military personnel policy is silent on the issue of homosexuality.224 Only a few of these nations assessed the impact of their policy changes in the years after the bans were lifted. In discussions with the Working Group and with RAND, many foreign military ofﬁcials have referred to the change as a “non-issue.” Within the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia militaries, there was a general expectation that noticeable numbers of gay men and lesbians would reveal their sexual orientation to fellow military personnel after the policy change, but in fact very few did so. As a result, commanders and senior ofﬁcials have generally concluded that the policy change has had little impact on their forces.225 Ofﬁcials in Canada and the United Kingdom also indicated that their recruiting goals were still met in the years immediately following the policy change, and that their retention did not suffer as a result of the policy change.226 The United Kingdom undertook a review six months after the policy change as well as a more formal review two years afterwards. British ofﬁcials told RAND that they knew of three military members who had resigned from service as a result of the policy change, out of a total force of 250,000 personnel.227 In their two year review, the United Kingdom did not notice any recruitment challenges. Indeed, British ofﬁcials observed that their new recruits were largely “indifferent” to the presence of gay men and lesbians in the ranks.228
221 222 223 224 225 226 RAND Foreign Military Researcher, phone interview with the CRWG, August 19, 2010. United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand Defense Ofﬁcials, interview with the CRWG, May 2010. RAND, 2010, 313. RAND, 2010, 293. RAND, 2010, 231, 315–316. Canadian ofﬁcials noted a drop in retention rates did occur during this period but explained that this drop was consistent with their expectations due to force reductions taking place at the same time unrelated to the policy change. 227 RAND, 2010, 309. 228 United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, Tri-Service Review of the Armed Forces Policy on Homosexuality and Code of Social Conduct (United Kingdom: December 2002).

91

Similarly, Australian defense ofﬁcials reported no noticeable problems with recruiting or retention following the change.229 Thus, in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, no problems with recruiting and retention following the change in policy to permit gay men and lesbians to serve were reported, except for isolated reports of small increases in the loss of senior non-commissioned ofﬁcers that may have resulted in part from the policy change. None of these nations directly assessed the effects of the policy change on unit cohesion or combat effectiveness. However, most of these nations have been engaged in combat operations in the years since changing their policy. Uniformly, these nations reported that they were aware of no units that had a degradation of cohesion or combat effectiveness, and that the presence of gay men and lesbians in combat units had not been raised as an issue by any of their units deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The United Kingdom’s review two years after its policy change found very few problems in units, primarily because only a small number of military members opted to disclose their sexual orientation. Those few incidents that did occur were handled at the unit level, and were comparable in scope to incidents reported as “personality clashes.”230 Since the time of that review, British forces have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan; senior ofﬁcials interviewed indicated that no incidents had occurred during these deployments and that leaders and military personnel had fully adapted to the policy.231 None of the nations contacted by the Working Group or RAND indicated that there was a rise in the number of harassment incidents as a result of the policy change.232 Germany maintains a somewhat unique reporting mechanism for formal complaints of all kinds, which operates outside the Ministry of Defence and reports directly to the Parliament. In the ﬁve years since the policy change, 50 of the 60,000 complaints ﬁled involved a gay man or lesbian. Of those 50, fewer than 10 involved harassment of some kind.233 In the United Kingdom, there was no increase in the rate of same-sex harassment. In the two years that followed the policy change, there had been one incident of an unwanted sexual advance by a gay man, which was dealt with effectively at the unit command level.234 Canada observed no change in the rate of same-sex harassment in the years after policy change.235 In Australia there were 12 complaints ﬁled involving gay men or lesbians in the 2 years post policy change, of which fewer than 5 involved harassment of any kind.236 In their report to the Working Group, RAND notes that in the course of their review of foreign militaries, several countries have commented that harassment due to gender integration was far more pronounced than harassment due to sexual orientation.237
229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 “Lessons Learned from the Service of Gays and Lesbians in Allied Militaries,” presentation, The Brookings Institution Conference, Washington, DC, May 19, 2010. United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, Tri-Service. United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand Defense Ofﬁcials, interview with the CRWG, May 2010; RAND, 2010, 256–263. RAND, 2010, 315. RAND, 2010, 290. United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, Tri-Service. United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand Defense Ofﬁcials, interview with the CRWG, May 2010. “Lessons Learned from the Service of Gays and Lesbians in Allied Militaries,” presentation, The Brookings Institution Conference, Washington, DC, May 19, 2010. RAND, 2010, 287, 295, 307, 314.

92

X

EXPERIENCES OF DOMESTIC ORGANIZATIONS

We also looked to the experiences of various municipal and federal agencies in the United States in integrating gay and lesbian personnel. As with foreign militaries, there are limits to making comparisons to these domestic organizations, but there are some important insights to be drawn. In particular, a number of the federal agencies currently have personnel who live and work alongside U.S. military personnel in deployed areas. For this task, we relied in large part on RAND’s update to its 1993 report.238 In 1993, RAND studied sexual orientation at local police and ﬁre departments. These institutions were chosen based on certain similarities to the military: they are all-volunteer forces of U.S. citizens, they are hierarchical in nature, and they rely heavily on cohesion and readiness to perform effectively. In many of the organizations, men far outnumber women. In its 2010 update, RAND again surveying municipal public safety agencies, this time in Houston, San Diego, Chicago, Charlotte, Oklahoma City, Orange County, and Philadelphia. RAND also studied several Federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. In 1993, none of the organizations surveyed by RAND had formal bans on gay employees or limits on the positions they could hold, but they did report very few openly gay personnel. Since then, many of the localities in question adopted policies of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation, which in turn apply to these public safety agencies. For example, Chicago, Houston, San Diego, and Orange County all now have ordinances against discrimination based on sexual orientation.239 Some Federal agencies have instituted policies to the same effect. For example, then-Secretary Warren Christopher issued a memo in 1994 outlining the Department of State’s commitment to non-discrimination: “The Department of State is committed to equal opportunity and fair and equitable treatment for all. The Department shall not discriminate among its employees or candidates for employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, disability, or sexual orientation.”240
238 RAND, 2010. 239 RAND, 2010, 331. 240 RAND, 2010, 331.

93

Later, in 1998, President Clinton issued an Executive Order prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation for civilian employees in all Federal agencies.241 Twenty-four states have enacted similar prohibitions applicable to state organizations.242 Employees of these institutions reported that having gay and lesbian personnel among their ranks has had no effect on their organization’s institutional performance. Rather, it appears that a common focus on the job brought co-workers together despite personal beliefs. Anecdotally, one Philadelphia police ofﬁcer said: “[Other police ofﬁcers] can hate your guts but they will still back you up,”243 noting instances of racist white police ofﬁcers supporting fellow ofﬁcers who were black. Likewise, a captain of a ﬁreﬁghting squad opined that sexual orientation “has nothing to do with ﬁghting ﬁres.”244 Several interviewees actually reported that integration of gay and lesbian personnel resulted in improved performance, in that the organizations were better equipped to respond to concerns of gay and lesbian constituents in their communities.245 Gay and lesbian employees of the agencies surveyed were evaluated by the same criteria as all other employees and accordingly, were represented in institutional leadership. The FBI reported that it had gay employees working successfully in positions that required close collaboration with the military, both domestically and internationally.246 Some stated that a work environment permitting gay and lesbian employees to acknowledge their sexual orientation improved individual job performance as the individuals did not have to expend effort concealing part of their lives and could focus fully on their work.247 Recruiting has also not suffered, with police and ﬁre departments generally reporting “an abundance” of recruits for their agencies.248 Some agencies (e.g., Chicago Police Department, Philadelphia Police Department) have gone so far as to conduct speciﬁc outreach efforts to their local gay and lesbian communities. Overall, retention was generally reported to be very high at the agencies surveyed, and it is rare for an employee to leave for reasons related to sexual orientation.249 The ﬁre departments RAND studied presented a somewhat comparable environment to the military with regard to living and working conditions and associated privacy concerns. While on shift, ﬁreﬁghters share living, bathing, and eating facilities. Also like the military, ﬁre departments had to adapt when women were integrated into their ranks. Those adaptations were often temporary at ﬁrst (e.g., curtains dividing living spaces) with
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 RAND, 2010, 326. RAND, 2010, 330. RAND, 2010, 345. RAND, 2010, 345. RAND, 2010, 345. RAND, 2010, 346. RAND, 2010, 346. RAND, 2010, 347. RAND, 2010, 348.

94

more permanent accommodations following over time. Nonetheless, ﬁreﬁghters share intimate quarters when on duty, regardless of permanent, separate facilities. None of the departments interviewed saw the need for additional privacy accommodations for gay ﬁre ﬁghters, and some individuals said that, when compared to integrating women, integrating gay and lesbian personnel was trivial. Very few privacy problems have been reported on the basis of sexual orientation.250 Among Federal agencies, the FBI’s training facility at Quantico, Virginia is one example of an environment where Federal employees share living space. During interviews there, RAND did not ﬁnd any incidents or complaints based on sexual orientation.251 Foreign service ofﬁcers from the State Department may be assigned to shared living spaces in certain countries; according to a foreign service ofﬁcer interviewed by RAND, this has “absolutely been a non-issue.”252 Furthermore, some Federal agencies send their personnel to deployed environments, where they may work alongside U.S. military personnel and live in military housing facilities. In the case of the FBI, according to RAND, no agent has asked to be sent home from a deployment with military personnel because of harassment directed against gays and lesbians.253 The locales surveyed represent a range of anti-discrimination regimes. In cases where there is no ofﬁcial policy forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation, existing standards provide similar protections. For example, Oklahoma City policy states that “employment decisions shall be made on the basis of skill, ability, qualiﬁcations, and job performance.”254 All agencies have some form of formal complaint process outside the chain of command to resolve complaints with a supervisor; typically an Ofﬁce of Internal Affairs, human resources, or Equal Employment Opportunity ofﬁce. Federal employees interviewed by RAND cited a 1992 change in policy allowing gay individuals to obtain security clearances and Executive Order 13087 in 1998 as important to extending workplace protections to employees.255 In the 1990s, more open forms of harassment such as grafﬁti on lockers were a concern in many agencies. Today, however, these forms of harassment are far less frequent. Slurs and derogatory name-calling based on sexual orientation still happen, but at much lower rates than for race or gender. These concerns are typically handled successfully at low levels in the organizational hierarchy.256

In general, reports of gay men or lesbians harassing others individuals are rare. In Oklahoma City, interviewees claimed that gay ofﬁcers tended to keep their off-duty life private. One interviewee stated, “I know in this part of the country it’s not easy for people [to accept homosexuality]. I was raised to believe [homosexuality] is wrong, but at work, it’s about treating all fairly.”257 RAND found no case of standards of conduct being lowered due to the presence of gay or lesbian employees, and some interviewees stated they thought having openly gay co-workers beneﬁtted the unit.258 For the most part, gay men and lesbians either kept their sexual orientation private, or revealed it to select co-workers on a case-by-case basis.259 Interviewees typically had trouble estimating the number of gay or lesbian members of their organization because only a small number were open about their sexuality to the entire department. When gay employees have decided to “come out,” it has typically been a discreet event to a few people. One human resources representative stated, “If you can’t be successful out, then you won’t come out.”260 There were also very few reports of “ﬂamboyant” or inappropriate behavior by gay and lesbian personnel. One ofﬁcial observed that if a police ofﬁcer carried a purse while on duty, he would be disciplined for a uniform policy violation. Broadly there was a sense that gay personnel know what behavior is acceptable in a business environment.261 In general, cohesion and effectiveness have not seemed to have been affected by breaches of standards of conduct. An Oklahoma City Police ofﬁcer said, “We really just think of ourselves as gray shirts.”262 A ﬁre captain said that sexual orientation does not advantage or disadvantage a ﬁreﬁghter.263 What mattered most to people interviewed was not a person’s background or orientation, but whether they could do the job. In sum, as with racial and gender integration of the military, the process of integrating gay men and lesbians into these municipal and Federal organizations ultimately laid many fears to rest. The experience of municipal law enforcement agencies and Federal agencies has been that the integration of gay and lesbian personnel has not negatively affected institutional or individual job performance.

To assist us in our assessment, the Working Group established a panel to consolidate and review the full breadth and depth of data collected by the Working Group and to conduct a staff assessment. A summary of the assessment panel’s approach, make-up, and ﬁndings are contained in this section; our overall assessment, which considers the ﬁndings of the staff assessment along with other factors, is in the following section.

Approach
To address the Terms of Reference, the Working Group needed to understand how the six areas assigned by the Terms of Reference—military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness—relate to one another. Figure 5 depicts the model constructed by the Working Group to depict these relationships. Areas in blue are those assigned expressly by the Terms of Reference: military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness. The overarching area to be assessed was military effectiveness. Military readiness and unit cohesion are primary components of military effectiveness. In addition, “unit effectiveness,” which is similar to but somewhat different from unit cohesion, was considered an additional component of military effectiveness that should be evaluated. Within military readiness, components are deﬁned by statute, and include personnel readiness. As such, recruiting and retention were considered to be subcomponents of military readiness. Taken together, the panel’s assessment of these major assessment areas and their subcomponents provided the information for the co-chairs to make an overall risk assessment to military effectiveness. Figure 5. Working Group Military Effectiveness Assessment Model
Military Effectiveness
Military Readiness
Family Readiness

Unit Effectiveness
Deployed Garrison

Unit Cohesion
Task Cohesion
Social Cohesion

Equipment

Relocation

Personnel Readiness

Garrison

Deployability

Retention

Recruiting

Deployed

Officer

Officer

Enlisted

Enlisted

97

In order to understand and evaluate each assessment area, the Working Group broke down each area into component parts. For unit cohesion, academic and military research indicates that it is made up of both task cohesion and social cohesion.264 Therefore, though they were not speciﬁcally assigned by the Terms of Reference, the panel assessed these subcomponents too. Unit effectiveness was assessed both while in garrison and deployed. Recruitment and retention focused on enlisted and commissioned ofﬁcer personnel. Additionally, as part of the Department of Defense’s responsibility to report readiness to Congress,265 the deployability of the force is considered part of military readiness; and it was also evaluated by the panel. Finally, family readiness was evaluated based on three distinct time periods for a military family: in garrison, during deployment, and while relocating. The panel was selected to represent all the Services and a wide range of ages, grades, warfare specialties, and experiences. The assessment panel included military ofﬁcers, three senior non-commissioned ofﬁcers, and several DoD career civilians. The panel consisted of combat arms personnel, aviators, surface combat personnel, an intelligence ofﬁcer, a personnel specialist, family readiness specialists, a recruiter, a judge advocate, an aeromedical ofﬁcer, and a military researcher. Eight of the panel members were part of the Working Group, including three Working Group members who were brought into the Working Group speciﬁcally because of their recent operational experience. For most of the review, the panel consisted of 11 members; for the family readiness review, the panel was increased to 15 members. In performing their assessment, each of the panel members applied their own individual, professional judgment. Through inclusion of panel members representing the operational communities in each service, the concerns and views of those communities were both heard and incorporated into the panel deliberations. Speciﬁcally included were representatives from the Army and Marine Corps combat arms communities. To conduct its staff assessment, the panel used a standard military decision support process recommended by the Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment Directorate of the Joint Staff (J-8). The same process has also been used by the Department of Defense in a variety of complex military decisions and risk assessments. The process is also widely used and accepted in academia and industry as well.266 The ﬁrst step of the decision support process required the assessment panel to determine the importance of each of the sub-areas to the various assessment areas. For example, the panel had to determine whether task cohesion or social cohesion had greater inﬂuence to overall unit cohesion and to what degree—or whether the two sub-areas had equal importance. The panel reviewed an extensive body of research, including materials submitted by outside organizations about the relative importance of task and social cohesion. This particular topic is itself subject to ongoing debate among academics and researchers. When discussing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, some researchers have minimized the
264 “Task cohesion” refers to the ability to work together effectively in order to accomplish a mission. “Social cohesion” refers to the emotional bonds and trust among unit members. 265 10 U.S.C. § 117. 266 Other users of the process include National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson & Johnson, and Amtrak.

98

importance of social cohesion and explained that it is only task cohesion that is critical to performance.267 Others tout the importance of social cohesion in military units as the driving force behind unit performance.268 The consensus among the panel was that both contribute to unit cohesion, but that task cohesion is the more important of the two. Indeed, research and analysis of the Service member survey data shows that task cohesion has a stronger relationship with unit performance than social cohesion.269 Thus, the panel weighed task cohesion signiﬁcantly higher (0.84) than social cohesion (0.16) in relative importance for overall unit cohesion. In a similar manner, the panel assigned numerical weights to each assessed area as reﬂected in Figure 6. Figure 6. The Weighting of the Assessment Areas and Supporting Sub-Areas

unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, deployability, and family readiness. Each subject matter expert described the area to be assessed, provided relevant information gathered by the Working Group, and answered questions. The information provided included qualitative information from the Working Group’s systematic engagement of the force and their families (i.e., information exchange forums, focus groups, online inbox, and conﬁdential communication mechanism), quantitative data from surveys, other data from the Services, scholarly work from civilian and military researchers, materials submitted by outside organizations, experiences of foreign militaries and domestic organizations, historical accounts of racial and gender integration in the U.S. military, and the relevant sections of RAND’s update to its 1993 report. After hearing each presentation and reviewing the data, panel members assigned a numeric rating for the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to each sub-area of military readiness, unit effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness. A rating of less than 3 was “LOW RISK”; a rating of 4 and above, but less than 6, was “MODERATE RISK,” and 7 and above was “HIGH RISK.” A rating between 3 and 4 was “LOW-MODERATE” and between 6 and 7 was “MODERATE-HIGH.” Figure 7. Assessment Rating Scale
Low Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 High Risk

The assessments of each individual panel member were then averaged to determine a single risk assessment for each area. Risk assessments for subcomponents were aggregated, in accordance with the weights assigned, to form a numeric risk rating for the overall area assessment. The panel applied its numeric ratings twice: once before and once after the consideration of risk mitigation factors, including the various policy, legal, training and education, and leadership recommendations of the Working Group. The panelists assumed that the Department of Defense had adequate time to fully implement these recommendations. Concurrently, a “red team” observed the assessment process from a separate room. The purpose of the red team was to critically evaluate the application of the methodology by the assessment panel, to ensure that the methodology was applied fairly and objectively, and that the assessment was based on relevant data and subject matter expertise. The red team was composed of seven individuals, co-led by a general ofﬁcer and a career SES civilian, with personnel from each Service, as well as civilian analysts that specialized in

100

red teaming. The red team was provided with the same information as the panel members and was able to hear and see everything during the assessment. The red team provided a summary report noting areas of concern with regard to methodology, discussion of ratings, group dynamics, and weaknesses in logic and analysis. The red team noted that, in general, the assessment panel’s conclusions and assessments were somewhat more conservative (i.e., presuming greater risk) than warranted given the data and information considered. Additionally, although the panel members did not always agree on their assessment of risk, panel deliberations were noted to be thoughtful, dispassionate, and without undue inﬂuence by any one panel member.

Factors Considered by the Panel
In evaluating the information gathered by the Working Group and presented by the subject matter experts, the panel considered a number of contextual factors, the most important of which are discussed below. Through the survey process and other engagements with the force, the Working Group heard views, concerns, and attitudes about a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Utilizing this information—in conjunction with historical lessons, the experiences of foreign militaries and domestic organizations, and organizational research on the topic within the U.S. military—the panel made its assessments of the impact of repeal. In order to best interpret this information, the panel also considered several contextual factors including: the relationship between attitudes and behaviors, research on when and if gays and lesbians are likely to disclose their sexual orientation in a military environment, and understanding what “open” service is and is not. Attitude vs. Behavior. First, the assessment panel discussed research indicating that attitudes—including those expressed in surveys—are not a good predictor of actual future behavior. This is demonstrated in social psychology data.270 Attitudes tend to be fairly general and emotionally laden. Behaviors reﬂect attitudes to a limited extent, and are also strongly affected by rules, social norms, and other constraints of speciﬁc situations. Thus, this is one of the reasons the Working Group’s survey focused in large part on Service members’ actual, past experiences with gay men and lesbians in their unit, and less on the predictions of how Service members might respond to future situations. Disclosure of Sexual Orientation. Second, the panel considered the extent to which gay and lesbian Service members will disclose their sexual orientation upon repeal. Research reviewed by the panel indicated that gay and lesbian Service members make-up approximately 3–4% of the total force.271 Based upon academic literature, RAND’s survey of gay and lesbian Service members, and the experiences of other nations after policies were changed to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly, the panel expected gay Service
270 271 C.J. Armitage and M. Conner, “Efﬁcacy of the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analytic review,” British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 2001, 471–499. RAND, 2010, 101; Estimate is based on FY2008 Adolescent Health survey data. This survey is administered by the National Institutes of Health and incorporates information on a variety of work and health related topics. It includes information on self-reported sexual orientation and military service.

101

members to continue to be discreet about their personal lives and careful to whom they share their sexual orientation. Understanding What “Open” Service Means. Third, the panel considered the apparent disconnect between Service members’ reports of having served successfully with others they believe to be gay or lesbian and predictions of negative impacts if gays and lesbians are allowed to serve “openly.” When Service members speak about gays and lesbians with whom they actually served, such co-workers are described based on their professional attributes, technical proﬁciency, and what they brought to the unit. In contrast, when expressing generalized concerns about repeal, Service members often focused on stereotypes: that gay men in particular would act in an effeminate manner inconsistent with the common image of a warﬁghter, would make unwanted sexual advances toward heterosexual Service members, or would engage in inappropriate public displays of affection.272 These generalized perceptions of gay Service members led to a fear that unit cohesion, morale, and good order and discipline will erode. Additionally, the panel considered the fact that Service members were not aware of the Working Group’s recommendations for how to implement a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. As such, the consensus was that Service members, fairly, were likely to consider a “worst case” scenario when predicting likely impact of repeal.

Areas of Assessment
With regard to each of the assessment areas the panel made the following ﬁndings: Unit Cohesion. As discussed previously, unit cohesion has two primary parts, task cohesion and social cohesion. “Task cohesion” refers to the ability to work together effectively in order to accomplish a mission. “Social cohesion” refers to the emotional bonds and trust among unit members. Based on research and comments from currently serving gays and lesbians, the panel expected that the number of gay and lesbian Service members would remain small following a repeal, and that most gay and lesbian Service members would likely only disclose their sexual orientation in a limited manner.273 Service members reported high levels of task cohesion in their current units—including those who believed they were currently serving with gay men and lesbians. Overall, 72% of Service members, and 77% of Service members currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian, indicated that repeal would have a positive, mixed, or no effect on task cohesion.274 Analysis of the survey data revealed that the largest driver of task cohesion was not the presence of gay men or lesbians in a unit, but the presence of good leadership by

ofﬁcers and non-commissioned ofﬁcers.275 Additionally, research indicates that leadership, shared mission success, and a common out-group or enemy all enable high unit cohesion.276 Another key factor in the panel’s assessment was research indicating that cohesion in military units is not likely to be adversely impacted by group diversity, especially with the presence of an effective leader.277 A number of Service members indicated in focus groups and in comments on the survey that what was important was whether or not someone could do their job, not their sexual orientation.278 The panel noted that Service members within combat arms were somewhat more negative about impact of repeal on task cohesion; however, combat arms personnel also believed, on the whole, that they were better led and reported higher overall cohesion in their current units.279 On the other hand, a signiﬁcant reason for the panel’s relatively high risk assessments for social cohesion was the potential impact of repeal on trust within a unit that might result from any violations of personal privacy. Though the possibility of violent episodes based on violations of personal privacy exists, the panel assessed that instances of violence are likely to be extremely rare and isolated. In addition, the panel found—and survey results supported—that while some units or individuals may reduce their off-duty socializing post-repeal, this has little impact on social cohesion, especially when compared to the large impact of leadership. The combined assessments of the panel members yielded an initial risk rating of LOW–MODERATE for task cohesion, and of MODERATE–HIGH for social cohesion before mitigation measures were considered. Given the relative greater importance of task cohesion to social cohesion, the panel rated the overall initial risk to unit cohesion as LOW–MODERATE. Figure 8. Unit Cohesion Risk Assessment Before Mitigation
Unit Cohesion (3.8) Task Cohesion (3.3) Social Cohesion (6.3)

The panel determined the impact of repeal on personal privacy, trust, and overall social cohesion can be signiﬁcantly mitigated by the Working Group’s policy recommendations, emphasis on existing standards of conduct, support to leaders to handle situations dealing with personal privacy, and education of the force that will help break down stereotypes. The panel recognized that mitigation measures for social cohesion will, in large part, rely on unit leaders to manage the expectations and behavior of their unit members. With these types of mitigation measures in place, the panel’s risk assessments went down considerably. Consistent, sexual-orientation neutral standards of conduct, as well as a policy of not collecting or tracking information on a Service member’s sexual orientation, served to mitigate task cohesion risk. Altogether, the panel found the risk to task cohesion as LOW, the risk to social cohesion as MODERATE, and the overall risk to unit cohesion to be LOW. Figure 9. Unit Cohesion Risk Assessment After Mitigation
Unit Cohesion (2.6) Task Cohesion (2.2) Social Cohesion (4.6)

Low Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

High Risk

Unit Effectiveness. Unit effectiveness refers to a unit’s ability to accomplish assigned tasks or missions and is the product of a complex interplay of numerous factors, both internal and external to the unit. Internal factors include leadership, individual knowledge and skills, training, equipment, logistical support, and unit cohesion, while external factors include weather, terrain, and enemy characteristics. Many of these factors would not be impacted by repeal; however, social factors such as cohesion, leadership, and social interactions, could be impacted. As such, the research and analysis for unit cohesion was a component of the assessment of the impact of repeal on unit effectiveness. The panel assessed the risk to unit effectiveness in the two environments within which the majority of military units operate: “in garrison” (e.g., at home, on base, or in port) and deployed. Prior to mitigation measures, the panel rated the impact of repeal as MODERATE risk in garrison and as LOW–MODERATE in a deployed environment. The survey results revealed that Service members were more negative about the impact of repeal on unit effectiveness while deployed to a ﬁeld environment or out at sea, with 44% of respondents reporting that unit effectiveness would be affected negatively in

104

that situation.280 On the other hand, the numbers of those predicting negative effects fell to 29% when asked about unit effectiveness in a crisis situation and 31% in an intense combat situation.281 These results suggest a large number of respondents are concerned about privacy and non-work-related distractions in the ﬁeld or at sea. However, these concerns diminish when a strong focus on mission accomplishment is required. These ﬁndings are consistent with research showing that a mutual threat and high levels of interdependence among unit members, commonly found in combat situations, enhances cohesion by activating an in-group identity and a shared goal that supersedes individual differences.282 Within garrison or during down time on deployment, the external threat is greatly reduced or non-existent, and those environments allow for numerous distractions, which can exacerbate tensions between Service members and detract from mission focus. Further, the survey results revealed unit effectiveness was reported to be good among those Service member who are currently serving with someone believed to be gay or lesbian.283 While these ratings are slightly less positive than those for units in which the Service member is not serving with someone believed to be gay or lesbian, when quality of leadership is accounted for, this difference becomes virtually non-existent.284 It is only in units with poor quality leadership—which in the survey accounted for less that 3% of responses—that this difference is noticeable. As with unit cohesion, the differences in unit effectiveness due to quality of leadership are ﬁve to ten times larger than those due to the presence of someone believed to be gay or lesbian. The panel also found relevant the historical record of the U.S. military’s experience with racial and gender integration, as well as experiences of foreign militaries and analogous domestic organizations. Not long after surveys of U.S. forces indicated that 65–80% of white Service members predicted signiﬁcant disruption and negative impact to unit effectiveness if blacks were integrated into their units, Army research from the period 1951–1953, conducted during the Korean War, found that racially integrated units performed in combat equally as well as all-white units.285 Likewise, Army research from the 1970s revealed no decline in unit effectiveness as a result of gender integration.286 Finally, RAND’s updated report notes that domestic police and ﬁre departments concluded that the presence of gay men and lesbians did not undermine unit effectiveness. The RAND report also describes the experiences of several foreign militaries that lifted bans on the military service of gay men and lesbians.287 These nations have participated in
280 See Appendix C, Question 71a. 281 See Appendix C, Questions 71b–c. 282 Guy L. Siebold, “Military Group Cohesion,” Military Life: The Psychology of Serving in Peace and Combat, vol. 1, ed. Thomas W. Britt, Carl Andrew Castro, and Amy B. Adler (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2006), 185–201. 283 See Appendix C, Questions 39c, 47c, and 55c. 284 CRWG analysis of 2010 DoD Comprehensive Review Survey of Active Duty and Reserve Members, 2010. 285 Alfred H. Haurath, “Utilization of Negro Manpower in the Army”, Journal of the Operations Research Society of America, 2, no. 1 (February 1954). 286 Leora N. Rosen et al., “Cohesion and Readiness in Gender-Integrated Combat Service Support Units: The Impact of Acceptance of Women and Gender Ratio,” Armed Forces & Society, 22, 1996, 537–553. 287 RAND, 2010, 275–316.

105

combat operations, often in cooperation with U.S. forces, since they lifted their bans, and none observed a decline in unit effectiveness. Figure 10. Unit Effectiveness Risk Assessment Before Mitigation
Unit Effectiveness (3.8) Deployed (3.7) Garrison (4.7)

Low Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

High Risk

The primary focus of mitigation measures were good leadership, clear standards of conduct applicable to all Service members, and well-designed education and training programs. The panel discussed the importance of leaders fully and consistently enforcing the standards of conduct in garrison or in port, as well as when deployed in the ﬁeld or at sea. When the recommended mitigation measures were considered, the panel rated the risk of repeal to unit effectiveness in both garrison and deployed settings as LOW. With those two environments combined, the panel rated the risk of repeal to overall unit effectiveness as LOW. Figure 11. Unit Effectiveness Risk Assessment After Mitigation
Unit Effectiveness (2.6) Deployed (2.5) Garrison (2.8)

Low Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

High Risk

106

Military Readiness. Military readiness is deﬁned as the ability of forces to ﬁght and meet the requirements of the National Military Strategy.288 Within military readiness, the panel considered recruiting, retention, and deployability issues as separate sub-areas for assessment. The panel rated retention as the most important of the three based on the time and resources invested in developing each Service member through their career, followed by non-deployability issues based on its impact on the ability to send forces abroad, and recruitment. The panel’s assessment of each is described separately below. Based on the assessments of recruiting, retention, and deployability factors, the panel assessed the overall risk of repeal to military readiness as MODERATE, before taking account of any mitigation measures and LOW, after taking account of these measures. Recruiting. The panel concluded, from data supplied by the Services, there would be little impact from a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on recruiting for the ofﬁcer and enlisted ranks. Service Academies and ROTC programs remain highly competitive and Services are meeting their ofﬁcer accession objectives. A military recruiting survey asked potential recruits whether a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would impact their likelihood to enlist. RAND analyzed this data and concluded that the effect on enlisted recruitments could decline by up to 7%, or the equivalent effect of a 1% decline in the national unemployment rate. The overall decline of 7% came from RAND’s analysis of a survey conducted by Joint Advertising Marketing Research and Studies in the April-June timeframe.289 (A subsequent analysis of a survey in the July to September timeframe, which used slightly different wording, showed an increase in overall recruiting of 4%; however, this information was not available to the panel at the time of its assessment.)290 The consensus among panel members, however, was that overall risk to recruitment was LOW for a number of reasons. First, research and survey data show that enlisted recruits are driven primarily by economic and ﬁnancial reasons. Research also shows that there is a weak link between attitudes and behavior, especially when individuals are asked to predict behavior in situations with which they are not familiar. As such, the panel was skeptical that enlisted recruits’ prediction about the impact of repeal on their likelihood of enlisting would reliably predict their actual behavior. Thus, the consensus of the panel was that a 7% decline would not actually come to fruition. Second, military recruitment systems are structured such that they are resilient to ﬂuctuations in the availability of potential recruits and the demand for new recruits on an annual basis. Each Service has been able to meet recruiting goals in recent years in substantially more difﬁcult conditions than exist currently.291
288 Department of Defense, Joint Publication 1-02, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, September 30, 2010, 387. 289 RAND, 2010, 178, 187. 290 RAND, 2010, 178, 187. 291 CRWG Assessment Team, “Recruiting Analysis Paper,” white paper, 2010.

107

Third, Service member survey data indicated that 63% of respondents would still recommend military service if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed.292 Finally, based on the experience of other nations, the panel believed that any recruiting challenges resulting from a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will be minimal. Accordingly, the panel assessed that, without mitigation measures in place, the risk of repeal to both ofﬁcer and enlisted recruitment is LOW.293 Figure 12. Recruiting Risk Assessment Before Mitigation
Recruiting (2.0) Officer (1.2) Enlisted (2.4)

Low Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

High Risk

In terms of mitigation measures, of particular importance to the panel’s assessment was the recommendation not to collect data on applicants’ sexual orientation and to continue existing policy of not asking recruits to reveal their sexual orientation. Also of importance was education and training for recruiters. This would enable them to clearly, succinctly, and accurately explain to potential recruits what repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell means for individual recruits, thereby reducing uncertainty about the change in policy. After such mitigation measures were taken into account, the risk of repeal to both ofﬁcer and enlisted recruitment was assessed as LOW.

292 See Appendix C, Question 80. 293 In reaching this conclusion, the panel did not place any weight on arguments offered that repeal would increase the number of ROTC candidates available, or recruiters’ access to college campuses. Although repeal may mean that ROTC programs will be generally more accepted on college campuses, the panel did not ﬁnd any persuasive evidence that supports the view that repeal will have a positive effect on ofﬁcer recruitment. There may be minimal gain, but more likely a net zero impact, of access to schools and institutions that currently prohibit military accessions programs.

108

Figure 13. Recruiting Risk Assessment After Mitigation

Recruiting (1.2) Officer (0.6) Enlisted (1.5)

Low Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

High Risk

Retention. Just as the Military Services place great emphasis on recruiting in order to sustain personnel readiness, they also emphasize retention of those already serving. Retaining those the Services have already invested time and resources training and developing to be productive members of the force is critical to the sustainment of readiness. This is particularly true of those junior leaders who represent an investment of 7–10 years of training and development, and who make up the pool of the future leaders of the force. As with recruitment, the panel assessed retention of enlisted and ofﬁcer personnel separately. Prior to mitigation measures being taken, the panel concluded that the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to the retention of enlisted and ofﬁcer personnel is MODERATE. Figure 14. Retention Risk Assessment Before Mitigation

Retention (5.3) Officer (5.3) Enlisted (5.3)

Low Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

High Risk

109

Here, key to the panel’s considerations were these factors: First, the survey results revealed that if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed, 62% of Service members across all pay grades reported that their career plans would not change; 13% reported that they will leave sooner than planned, and 11% indicated that they will consider leaving sooner than planned.294 Additionally, 19% of Service members who reported they intend to remain beyond their current obligation or until retirement, indicated they would leave sooner if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. Second, the panel concluded, based on the survey results and other factors, that enlisted personnel retention is most heavily inﬂuenced by ﬁnancial beneﬁts and economic conditions outside the military. The Service member survey asked respondents to identify the top three factors in considering whether to stay or depart from military service. Among the enlisted ranks, the state of the economy was consistently ranked ﬁrst or second—except for among the senior enlisted grades for whom retirement beneﬁts and years to retirement became more important. The survey results indicate that ofﬁcer retention is impacted primarily by personal job satisfaction and the satisfaction of their families with the military. Additionally, when Service members compared these particular factors to repeal, only 8% of Service members viewed repeal to be more important than other retention factors.295 RAND’s analysis of this data estimates the number of Service members, depending on Service and warfare community, who may leave the military sooner as a result of repeal at 3–6%.296 Third, the majority of enlisted personnel have long-term service obligations that will prevent large numbers from leaving immediately if repeal were to occur. Initial obligations are between three to six years; with a second contract term, this often adds up to nine to ten years’ service. The 10-year mark is halfway to retirement beneﬁts. Over the years of fulﬁlling their service obligations, enlisted personnel will likely adjust to and better understand the changes brought about by repeal. Ofﬁcers do not sign enlistment contracts. They incur service obligations in various other ways (e.g., professional education), but these obligations do not extend as far through an ofﬁcer’s career as typical service obligations do for enlisted personnel. Ofﬁcers have more ﬂexibility in extending their obligations and decide to leave or stay for a larger variety of reasons. Thus, though survey results indicated fewer ofﬁcers than enlisted personnel would change their career plans if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed, the panel assigned a greater risk of repeal to ofﬁcer retention than enlisted retention. This was because ofﬁcers have greater ﬂexibility in their own retention decisions, there are fewer ﬁnancial incentive programs available to the Services that may signiﬁcantly affect ofﬁcer retention, and the primary burden of managing the process of repeal will fall to leaders of small units.

Fourth, neither Canada nor the United Kingdom observed retention problems as a consequence of their lifting of the respective bans on military service by gay men and lesbians.297 The panel concluded that, after mitigation measures, the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to the retention of enlisted personnel is LOW, and the risk to retention of ofﬁcers is higher, in the range of LOW–MODERATE. The overall risk rating for retention is LOW–MODERATE. Figure 15. Retention Risk Assessment After Mitigation

Retention (3.3) Enlisted (2.9) Officer (3.8)

Low Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

High Risk

In terms of mitigation factors, key to the panel’s risk assessment on retention was the recommendation not to introduce new mechanisms for Service members to terminate their military service prior to the conclusion of their present service obligation. Education and training considered was also considered important, to enable commanders to effectively communicate the actual and expected consequences of repeal for everyday life in the military, for use in retention counseling. Other Readiness Factors. Personnel readiness is a key facet of military readiness and refers to the preparedness of Service members, individually and collectively, to perform their responsibilities in support of the missions assigned. Within personnel readiness, commanders track unit personnel who are non-deployable. Many reasons exist as to why a member may be non-deployable, including lack of a security clearance, pending disciplinary action, inadequate training, or the Service member being within 180 days of separation.

297

Canadian Defense Ofﬁcials, interview with the CRWG, May 2010; United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, Tri-Service.

111

The panel identiﬁed four key reasons for non-deployability that may be impacted by a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell—training, medical, legal, and family care. The panel found the impact of repeal on deployability to be LOW, even before mitigation measures were considered. Figure 16. Deployability Risk Assessment Before Mitigation

Deployability (2.9)

Low Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

High Risk

Throughout the Working Group’s engagements with the force, Service members brought up various medical concerns. This included increased risk of contracting HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases. In 1993, the DoD Military Working Group concluded that HIV-related concerns were a signiﬁcant risk to the military if gays and lesbians were allowed to serve openly. However, since then the medical community has made signiﬁcant advances in its understanding, treatment, and prevention of HIV. The panel noted that every Service member is tested for HIV at least every two years, and all Service members are tested prior to and following deployment, on the advice of a doctor, or upon request. A positive HIV test immediately classiﬁes a Service member as non-deployable. All new recruits are tested, and a positive HIV test result precludes entry into military service. In addition, the Services Surgeons General have issued a joint letter to the Working Group stating that the medical community procedures to prevent the spread of HIV and to secure the blood supply of the Military Services are sufﬁcient, such that a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will have no adverse impact to deployability of personnel.298 Thus, the panel concluded that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would result in no signiﬁcant change in overall HIV prevalence in the military. Next, the panel considered survey results in which 46% of Service members predicted that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would have a negative effect on their unit’s ability to train well together.299 The panel reviewed research and discussions related to social cohesion and

privacy and concluded that any impacts to training would not jeopardize the deployability or readiness of troops. The panel also considered whether repeal would result in an increase in violence or harassment such that Service members would be unable to deploy due to pending disciplinary action. Foreign militaries indicated very few incidents of violence and harassment following repeal.300 The panel reviewed data from the Services on typical non-deployability due to “legal reasons,” reviewed qualitative data from the Working Group’s engagements with the force, and assessed comments regarding violence from the write-in portions of the survey. Based on this, the panel concluded that existing standards and good leadership would maintain discipline within the force and not impact deployability. Finally, the panel considered whether repeal would impact family care plan issues. Within the military a family care plan is required for children of dual military spouses or children of a single military parent. Service members must have concrete plans in place for who will take care of their children in the event of deployment and must ensure that required legal documentation—such as a medical power of attorney—is complete. Current data shows that the numbers of those who are non-deployable for lack of family care plans is very small, and the panel concluded that repeal would not add signiﬁcantly to that number. Mitigation measures discussed by the panel included: sexual orientation neutral policies, maintaining current high standards of conducts, and providing education and training to leaders and the force at large. These measures were determined to be effective in reducing overall risk of deployability. The panel rated the potential impact to deployability as LOW. Figure 17. Deployability Risk Assessment After Mitigation
Deployability (2.0)

Low Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

High Risk

300 “Lessons Learned from the Service of Gays and Lesbians in Allied Militaries,” presentation, The Brookings Institution Conference, Washington, DC, May 19, 2010.

113

Family Readiness. Family readiness is the military family’s ability to successfully meet the challenges of daily living in the unique context of military life, including deployments and frequent relocation. Programs and beneﬁts provided by the Services play a key role in helping Service members and their families through deployment-related stresses. Based on several factors, the assessment panel concluded that the overall risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to family readiness, before considering mitigating factors, was LOW. The area of largest concern was family readiness in garrison. Figure 18. Family Readiness Risk Assessment Before Mitigation
Family Readiness (2.0) Relocation (1.7) Garrison (3.0)

Low Risk 0 1 2
Deployed (1.9)

High Risk 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

First, a majority of spouses (61%) rated their family as ready or very ready, with only 6% rating their family as unready or very unready.301 Moreover, 78% of spouses said that repeal would have no effect on or would improve their family readiness, while only 8% said it would reduce their family readiness.302 Second, spouses reported that repeal would have no effect on their involvement in family support activities, programs, and events. More than 70% of spouses who said they attended most support activities and that these activities were important or very important indicated that repeal would have no effect on their participation.303 However, 24% of those spouses who attend most deployment support events, and 15% of those who attend most family support events, report they would attend less often. Although some spouses had expressed concerns about a negative impact on participation in these programs, many recognized that same-sex partners cope with the same experiences and stresses while their Service members were deployed. Many (72%) of the spouses also said that repeal would either have no effect on their attendance at military social events or that they would attend more often.304

Third, while many spouses and Service members expressed concerns about same-sex couples moving into on-base housing, a majority of spouses who currently live in on-base housing said that if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed they would stay in on-base housing. Far fewer, less than 20%, said they would seek to move if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed.305 Fourth, while the assessment panel recognized the potential for some minor negative impacts to family readiness for many families, they also concluded that there would likely be a substantial positive effect on family readiness for gay or lesbian Service members and their families. The key mitigating factors considered by the assessment panel were effective education, strong leadership, and clear policies. Although many spouses indicated that they would prefer to have information about a new policy distributed on military web sites (34%) or printed information (37%), many also said that no special communication would be necessary (43%).306 After considering the impact of repeal after mitigation measures are in place, the panel rated the overall impact on family readiness as LOW, including in garrison. Figure 19. Family Readiness Risk Assessment After Mitigation
Family Readiness (1.5) Relocation (1.4) Garrison (1.9)

Low Risk 0 1 2
Deployed (1.4)

High Risk 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

305 See Appendix D, Question 21. 306 See Appendix D, Question 11.

115

Summary of Panel Assessment
The panel provided the Co-Chairs with their staff assessment of overall risk in the areas of military readiness, unit effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness. Figure 20 depicts the panel’s numeric risk ratings prior to the consideration of mitigating factors; Figure 21 depicts the numeric risk ratings after consideration of mitigation factors. Figure 20. Preliminary Assessment of Risk Before Mitigation Factors Considered

Before Mitigation Assessment
Low Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

High Risk 9 10

Military Effectiveness
Military Readiness
3.9

Unit Effectiveness
3.8

Unit Cohesion
3.8

Family 2.0 Readiness

Equipment

Deployed
3.7

Garrison
4.7

Task Cohesion
3.3

Social Cohesion
6.3

Relocation
1.7

Personnel Readiness

Garrison
3.1

Deployability
2.9

Retention
5.3

Recruiting
2.0

Deployed
1.9

Officer
5.3

Officer
1.2

Enlisted
5.3

Enlisted
2.4

FOUO: Pre-decisional // ASSESS

116

Figure 21. Assessment of Risk After Mitigation Factors Considered

After Mitigation Assessment
Low Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

High Risk 8 9 10

Military Effectiveness
Military Readiness
2.5

Unit Effectiveness
2.6

Unit Cohesion
2.6

Family 1.5 Readiness

Equipment

Deployed
2.5

Garrison
2.8

Task Cohesion
2.2

Social Cohesion
4.6

Relocation
1.4

Personnel Readiness

Garrison
1.9

Deployability
2.0

Retention
3.3

Recruiting
1.2

Deployed
1.4

Officer
3.8

Officer
0.6

Enlisted
2.9

Enlisted
1.5

FOUO: Pre-decisional // ASSESS

117

118

XII OUR OVERALL ASSESSMENT
Introduction
Based on all we saw and heard, our assessment is that, when coupled with the prompt implementation of the recommendations we offer below, the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to overall military effectiveness is low. We conclude that, while a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will likely, in the short term, bring about some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention, we do not believe this disruption will be widespread or long-lasting, and can be adequately addressed by the recommendations we offer below. Longer term, with a continued and sustained commitment to our core values of leadership, professionalism, and respect for all, we are convinced that the U.S. military can adjust and accommodate this change, just as it has others in history. The survey results reveal that approximately 70% of the force predict that repeal will have mixed, positive or no effects on their unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done.” We are mindful that, during this time of war, these same survey results reveal a signiﬁcant minority—around 30%, and in some cases as high as 40–60% in warﬁghting units—that predict negative effects. However, for the reasons stated below, we are conﬁdent that the risks of repeal to military effectiveness in these units, while somewhat higher than the overall force, remain within acceptable levels when coupled with the recommendations for implementation in this report. For our assessment we considered a number of things large and small, complex and simple. Those most important are described below. We begin with an e-mail received in the course of our review from a military spouse from Virginia who is also an active volunteer in support of military families. This one e-mail captures much of what underlies our assessment. “As a wife of a Marine (an ofﬁcer who entered as an enlisted), I’ve served as a volunteer, been appointed as a Family Readiness Assistant and worked professionally as a Readiness and Deployment Support Trainer and a Family Readiness Trainer for Marine Corps Family Team Building, I’ve had the opportunity to come in contact with and discuss this matter with a number of Marines and family members of varying ages and ranks....

119

“I do believe that repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is an inevitable and important step for modernizing our current military force, and is fundamentally necessary for a country built on the ideals of equality for all citizens. “I ﬁrmly believe that, in time, our future generations will look back on our current debate as antiquated and nonsensical, failing to comprehend how we could possibly oppose opening our military to any citizen wanting to serve the nation. I believe this debate is largely motivated by a general misunderstanding and a reactionary fear, similar to the motives of our previous generations who opposed or questioned the idea of integrating our armed forces or permitting women to serve in the diverse roles they currently occupy across our branches of the service. “With that said, I have no illusions that this process will be an easy or a quick one. The military is a community steeped in tradition and order. We take great pride in our history and culture, and at times this pride often impedes the speed of progress or willingness to embrace change. In the Marines Corps, particularly, the opposition to this process will likely be immense, specially surrounding living quarters and barracks structure for junior enlisted Marines. I believe that this issue can be addressed and mitigated by the leadership (both ofﬁcers and NCOs) starting with every Marine’s ﬁrst day of training at boot camp/ofﬁcer candidate school... “I think it’s important we emphasize both to our leaders and junior military members that this policy is intended to build morale among the branches and equalize our military, not to alter its culture. It’s important to remember that the military culture is an impartial one that does not offer any special treatment, advancement or encouragement of any lifestyle choices, and simply welcomes those who want to serve their nation—without discrimination—but equally without any endorsement of any personal qualities, traits or choices made by its members. “I believe that in the next few decades, as the armed forces adjust to this change and become more comfortable with its impact, the resistance will recede and the military will actually be stronger for making this policy change.”307

Survey Results
The results of the Service member survey, described in section VII, reveal that in today’s U.S. military, a solid majority believe that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will have a positive, mixed, or no effect on military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion,
307 Spouse, e-mail message to CRWG, 2010.

120

recruiting, retention, and family readiness.308 Asked speciﬁcally in question 68a of the Service member survey about how an openly gay or lesbian individual in their unit would affect the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,” 70% of Service members said the effect would be equally mixed, positive, or non-existent; only 30% said it would be negative or very negative.309 Asked in question 81 about how repeal will affect their own military career plans, 62% responded that their plans would not change, while an additional 11% did not know.310 Overall, in response to a variety of questions, 50–55% of the force indicated that repeal will have a mixed or no effect; about 15–20% believe that repeal will have a positive effect, while another 30% believe it will have a negative effect.311 The results of the spouse survey are consistent. When spouses were asked whether repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would affect their preference for their Service member’s future plans to stay in the military, 74% of respondents said repeal would have no effect on their preference; 12% answered “I would want my spouse to leave earlier.”312 When asked what they would do if a gay or lesbian Service member and same-sex partner lived on-base in their neighborhood, 63% of respondents answered “I would get to know them like any other neighbor,” 13% answered “I would do nothing,” and 13% answered “I would generally avoid them when I could.”313 Finally, 76% of spouses answered the presence of a gay or lesbian partner of a Service member “would not affect my attendance at deployment-support activities.”314 To be sure, these survey results reveal a signiﬁcant minority—about 30% —who expressed in some form and to some degree negative views or concerns about the impact of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.315 Any personnel policy change for which a group that size predicts negative consequences must be approached with caution. However, there are a number of other considerations that still lead us to conclude that the risk of repeal to overall military effectiveness is low.

Misperceptions About “Open” Service
The reality is that gay men and lesbians are already serving in today’s military. The other reality, revealed in the course of this review, is that much of the force recognizes this. As the survey indicates, 36% believe they are currently serving in a unit with a gay or lesbian Service member; 69% believe that, at some point in their career, they have served in

a unit with a co-worker they believed to be gay or lesbian.316 But, a frequent response among Service members at information forums, when asked about the widespread recognition that gay men and lesbians are already in the military, is “yes, but I don’t know they are gay.” Put another way, the concern with repeal among many is with “open” service. In listening to Service members we found a perceptions gap—between the perception of the gay Service member that people know and work with, and the perception of the stereotypical gay individual that people do not know and have never worked with. When Service members talk about a unit member they believe to be gay or lesbian, their assessment of that individual was based on a complete picture and actual experience, including the Service member’s technical and tactical capabilities and other characteristics that contribute to his or her overall effectiveness as a member of the military and as a colleague. By contrast, when asked about serving with the imagined gay Service member who is “open” about his or her sexual orientation, that feature becomes the predominant if not sole characteristic of the individual, and stereotypes ﬁll in the rest of the picture. Stereotypes motivated many of the comments we heard. The most prevalent concern expressed is that gay men will behave in a stereotypically effeminate manner, while lesbian women are stereotypically painted in “masculine” terms. We heard widespread perceptions that, if permitted to be open and honest about their sexual orientation, gay Service members would behave as sexual predators and make unwelcome sexual advances on heterosexuals, gay men would adopt feminine behavior and dress, there would be open and notorious displays of affection in the military environment between same-sex couples, and that repeal would lead to an overall erosion of unit cohesion, morale, and good order and discipline. Based on our review, however, we conclude that these concerns are exaggerated and not consistent with the reported experiences of many Service members. The perceptions gap we note here is also reﬂected in the survey data. The data reveals that Service members who are currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian are less likely to perceive a negative impact of repeal on the key elements of unit task and social cohesion, and unit effectiveness. Conversely, those who have believe they have never served with someone who is gay or lesbian are more likely to perceive a negative impact. Likewise, of Service members who believe they have in their career served in a unit with a co-worker who is gay or lesbian, 92% stated that the unit’s “ability to work together” was “very good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor.”317 Thus, our view is that the negative perceptions and predictions of serving alongside a gay Service member are refuted by the considerable track record of actual experiences where Service members did exactly that.

316 See Appendix C, Question 34. 317 See Appendix C, Question 47a.

122

In addition, we conclude that if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, there will not be a mass “coming out” of gay Service members, as some predict. We assess that, for the most part and at least in the short term, gay Service members would continue to be selective and discreet about whom they share information about their sexual orientation with, for reasons having nothing to do with the law and everything to do with a sheer desire to ﬁt in, co-exist, and succeed in the military environment. This conclusion is also consistent with the environment in civilian society, where no law requires gay men and lesbians to conceal their sexual orientation to keep their jobs. In civilian society, gay men and lesbians are legally permitted to be “open” about their sexual orientation, but research indicates that they tend to be open about their sexual orientation only with someone they know and trust (e.g., friends) rather than with someone they don’t know as well (e.g., neighbors). (See Figure 22.) Figure 22. Disclosure of Sexual Orientation by Gay Men Ages 24–34

100% 80%

5% 22%

26%

Not Open Somewhat Open

72%

39%

60% 40%
34%

Very Open

20% 0
To Friends
Source: RAND, 2010, 11

To Neighbors

We believe this selectivity would exist even more so in the military environment, apart from what the law may prohibit or permit. RAND conducted a limited survey that included 208 individuals who anonymously self-identiﬁed as gay or lesbian Service members and asked them how their behavior would change if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed. Only 15% indicated they would like to have their sexual orientation known to everyone in their unit if the law is repealed, and 59% would selectively disclose it to others. (See Figure 23.)

Our conclusion that gay and lesbian Service members would, for the most part, continue to be discreet about their orientation is consistent with what we heard directly from those Service members, on an anonymous basis: “Personally, I don’t feel that this is something I should have to ‘disclose.’ Straight people don’t have to disclose their orientation. I will just be me. I will bring my family to family events. I will put my family pictures on my desk. I am not going to go up to people and say, hi there—I’m gay.”318 “I think a lot of people think there is going to be this big ‘outing’ and people ﬂaunting their gayness, but they forget that we’re in the military. That stuff isn’t supposed to be done during duty hours regardless if you’re gay/straight.”319 “If I am asked the question, then I will answer honestly, but I will not go to work the next day after DADT is repealed and just announce to everyone that I am Gay. I try my best not to make the people around me uncomfortable; I already know how that feeling can be.”320

Risks of Repeal Within Warﬁghting Units
Though the survey results demonstrate a solid majority of Service members—around 70% —who predict mixed, positive, or no effects in the event of repeal,321 this percentage is not uniform among all subgroups in the U.S. military. The percentages of those who predict negative effects are higher in warﬁghting units.322 In response to question 68a, for example, while only 30% the U.S. military as a whole predict negative or very negative effects on their unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,”323 the percentage is 43% for the Marines Corps, 48% within Army combat arms units, and 58% within Marine combat arms units.324 Particularly in this time of war, we made sure that warﬁghters in all Services were part of our risk assessment process. The percentages above reﬂect attitudes. Social science research tells us that attitudes, which are often laden with emotion and misperception, are less valuable as predictors of future behavior than actual experiences.325 Thus, in designing the survey we recognized that an important component in assessing the impact of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was to also focus on Service members’ actual past and present experiences in a unit with someone they believed to be gay. In response to question 34 of the survey, while 36% of the overall force stated they are currently serving in a unit with someone they believe to be gay,326 only 20% of those in Marine combat arms units and 27% of those in Army combat arms units answered that they were serving with someone they believe to be gay.327 A similar distinction exists in response to question 36, when it came to those who have ever at any point in their career served in a unit with a co-worker they believed to be gay or lesbian. Thus, fewer Service members in warﬁghting units have served with someone they believe to be gay, and more are left to only imagine what service with an openly gay person would be like—the circumstance in which misperceptions and stereotypes ﬁll the void, for lack of actual experience. However, when Service members in warﬁghting units who had served with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian were asked to assess their actual experiences, the distinctions in survey results between those in combat arms and the overall military are almost non-existent. For example, for those who have had the experience of working with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian, when asked to rate that unit’s “ability to work together,” 92% of the overall military said the answer was “very good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor.”328 In response to that same question, the percentage is 89% for those in
321 322 323 324 325 See Appendix C, Questions 67–75. See Appendix C, Questions 67–75. See Appendix C, Questions 67–75. Westat, vol. 1, Appendices J and L, Question 68a. Allan W. Wicker, “An Examination of the ‘Other Variables’ Explanation of Attitude-Behavior Inconsistency,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, no. 1, July 1971, 18–30. 326 See Appendix D, Question 34. 327 Westat, vol. 1, Appendices J and L, Question 34. 328 See Appendix C, Question 47a.

125

Army combat arms units and 84% for those in Marine combat arms units—all very high percentages.329 These survey results reveal to us a misperception that a gay man does not “ﬁt” the image of a good warﬁghter—a misperception that is almost completely erased when a gay Service member is allowed to prove himself alongside fellow warﬁghters. Anecdotally, we heard much the same. As one special operations force warﬁghter told us, “We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.”330 The survey results also reveal that, within warﬁghting units, negative predictions about serving alongside gays decrease when in “intense combat situations.” In response to question 71a, for example, 67% of those in Marine combat arms units predict working alongside a gay man or lesbian will have a negative or very negative effect on their unit’s effectiveness in completing its mission “in a ﬁeld environment or out at sea.”331 By contrast, in response to the same question, but during “an intense combat situation,” the percentage drops to 48%.332 Our judgment is that the levels of reluctance of gays to “out themselves” described in the previous section, even if permitted by law, would be even higher in warﬁghting units. This, coupled with the low number of gay men estimated to be in the military (relative to their representation in civilian population),333 leads us to conclude that, if the law were repealed, the change in culture and environment in warﬁghting units will be minimal. For these reasons, we conclude that the risks of repeal within warﬁghting units of all Services, while somewhat higher than the force generally, remain within acceptable levels when coupled with our recommendations for implementation.

Change During a Time of War
Our assessment also took account of the fact that the Nation is at war on several fronts, and for a period of over nine years, the U.S. military has been fully engaged, and has faced the stress and demands of frequent and lengthy deployments. When it comes to a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, many ask: why now? The question “why now?” is not for us, but for the President, the Secretary of Defense, and Congress, informed by the military advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The question we answer here is “can we now?” We considered the question carefully and conclude that
329 330 331 332 333 Westat, vol. 1, Appendices J and L, Question 47a. Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010. Westat, vol. 1, Appendices J and L, Question 71a. Westat, vol. 1, Appendices J and L, Question 71c. RAND, 2010, 98–102.

126

repeal can be implemented now, provided it is done in a manner that minimizes the burden on leaders in deployed areas. Our recommended implementation plan does just that, and it is discussed more fully in the accompanying support plan for implementation. The primary concern is for the added requirement that will be created by the training and education associated with repeal. We are cognizant of these concerns, but note that during this period, the Services have undertaken education and training in deployed areas on a number of important personnel matters. These education and training initiatives have included increased emphasis on sexual assault prevention and response, suicide prevention, and training to detect indications of behavioral health problems. The conduct of these programs in deployed areas indicates that training and education associated with a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell can be accommodated. We assess this to be the case, in large part because our recommendations in this report involve a minimalist approach to changes in policies, plus education and training that reiterates existing policies in a sexual orientation-neutral manner. It is also the case that the results of the survey indicate, though this is a time of war, a solid majority of Service members believe that repeal will have positive, mixed, or no effect. Most of those surveyed joined our military after September 11, 2001, and have known nothing but a military at war. We are also informed by past experience. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, in the period immediately following World War II, during the Korean War and the beginning of the Cold War, our military took on the task of racial integration, in advance of the rest of society. And, at the time, the change implicated far larger numbers of Service members: African Americans in the Army then numbered 700,000 of a total force of over 8 million, and the opposition to racial integration was far greater than today’s resistance to repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The process of racial integration was slow and presented many challenges, but history shows that there were no differences in combat effectiveness in the Korean War between integrated and all-white segregated units.

Resistance to Change Generally
We recognize that some number of individuals within any group or organization are initially resistant to signiﬁcant change, no matter the speciﬁc circumstances.334 Research shows that factors such as self-interest, misunderstandings about the underlying situation, and differing assessments all play a role in creating initial resistance among a signiﬁcant minority of those who will be affected by change.335 Such resistance can also occur based on the potential insecurity and instability that change can bring.336 Such baseline resistance
334 Eric B. Dent and Susan G. Goldberg, “Challenging ‘resistance to change’”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, no. 1, March 1999, 25–41; Paul Thornton, Management Principles and Practice. (Livermore: Wingspan Press), 2006. 153. 335 John P. Kotter and Leonard A. Schlesinger, “Choosing Strategies for Change,” Harvard Business Review (Boston: July 1, 2008), 130–139. 336 Kotter, 130–139.

127

to any major organizational change is estimated by some experts at a consistent 20–30% (with 5–10% expressing strong resistance) and is to be expected.337

Lessons from History
Though there are fundamental differences among matters of race, gender, and sexual orientation, we believe the racial integration of the U.S. military in the 1940s and 1950s and the gender integration of the military that took place largely in the 1970s present some useful historical lessons and provide basic support for our assessment. With the beneﬁt of many years of hindsight, we believe the lesson to be drawn from these transformational experiences described in section VII above is that, in matters of personnel change within the military, predictions and surveys tend to overestimate the negative consequences for unit cohesion and military effectiveness, and underestimate the U.S. military’s ability to adapt and incorporate within its ranks the diversity that is reﬂective of American society at large. These experiences also highlight the importance of effective leadership in the process of implementing change.

Experiences of Other Militaries
Our assessment is also informed by the experiences of foreign allies. To be sure, there is no perfect comparator to the U.S. military. In recent times, however, a number of other nations have transitioned to policies that permit open military service by gays and lesbians. These include the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy and Israel. Signiﬁcantly, prior to change, surveys of the militaries in Canada and the U.K. indicated much higher levels of resistance than the Working Group’s survey results—as high as 65% for some areas—but the actual implementation of change in those countries went much more smoothly than expected, with little or no disruption.338 We also know from the experience of other nations that very few gay men and lesbians “came out” after the lifting of the ban on military service. We have heard from military ofﬁcials from the United Kingdom and Canada that few military members revealed their sexual orientation after the policy changed.339

Domestic Organizations
Our assessment is also informed by the experiences of non-military organizations in our country. As with the other comparators above, we recognize that no domestic organization is wholly analogous to the U.S. military. That said, we think the fact that municipal law enforcement agencies (local police and ﬁre departments) and Federal agencies (including the FBI and CIA) have had no negative major disruptions in integrating gay and lesbian personnel is notable. The experience of these agencies shows that the integration of gay and lesbian personnel has not negatively affected institutional job performance or individual job performance. Rather, it appears that in these organizations sexual orientation has had little or nothing to do with success in the workplace.340 Further, some gay and lesbian personnel were able to do their jobs even better in environments accepting of their sexual orientation.341 Integrating gay and lesbian employees also did nothing to negatively impact recruiting and retention at the agencies surveyed.342 Further, in situations in which gay and lesbian personnel in these Federal agencies have lived and worked alongside U.S. military personnel in deployed environments, we are aware of no reports of conduct detrimental to accomplishing the mission.343

Panel Assessment
Finally, our overall assessment is itself based on the staff assessment conducted by a panel of military ofﬁcers, senior non-commissioned ofﬁcers, and DoD career civilians chosen to represent all the Services, and a wide range of ages, grades, warfare specialties, and experiences. To conduct its assessment, the panel used a standard military decision support process recommended by the J-8, Directorate of the Joint Staff. This staff risk assessment was typical in the military context, and it is one the military utilizes for a variety of important decisions. To inform our assessment of the overall risk to military effectiveness, the panel assessed the impact of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on military readiness, unit effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness. After consideration of various mitigation measures, including policies, leadership, education, and training, the panel assessed all areas and subcomponents of those areas as in the LOW or MODERATE risk ranges. In the key areas of military readiness, unit effectiveness, and unit cohesion the risks were all deemed to be LOW. Having considered the panel’s assessments, as well as other information gathered by the Working Group and implementation of our recommendations that follow, we assess the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to overall military effectiveness is LOW.
340 RAND, 2010, 344–346. 341 RAND, 2010, 346. 342 RAND, 2010, 347–348. 343 RAND, 2010, 346.

129

130

XIII

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

We now turn to our recommendations. Our Terms of Reference call for us to recommend appropriate changes to policies and regulations and to develop leadership guidance and training for the force in the event of repeal. These recommendations were developed in conjunction with our assessment, based on all that we heard. Many of the recommendations that follow come, in particular, from listening to Service members during our engagement of the force. In some instances, we recommend revisions to existing regulations; in other areas we recommend that the Department of Defense and/or the Services simply reiterate existing guidance; in still other places we recommend no change at all, but reviewed the issue because a number of Service members raised it. As indicated in the prior section, our assessment presumes successful implementation of these recommendations. Motivating many of our recommendations is the conclusion, based on our numerous engagements with the force, that repeal would work best if it is accompanied by a message and policies that promote fair and equal treatment of all Service members, minimize differences among Service members based on sexual orientation, and disabuse Service members of any notion that, with repeal, gay and lesbian Service members will be afforded some type of special treatment. Within the military culture, such a message maximizes the opportunities for quick and smooth acceptance of gay and lesbian Service members within the force. It is also consistent with all we heard from gay and lesbian Service members themselves, who told us that they simply want a repeal of the law so that they can be treated the same as everyone else, and serve the Nation without fear of separation if their sexual orientation becomes known. As a related matter, we believe it critical that it be made clear to those who are opposed to repeal, particularly on moral and religious grounds, that their concerns are not being rejected and that leaders have not turned their backs on them. In the event of repeal, individual Service members are not expected to change their personal religious or moral beliefs about homosexuality; however, they are expected to treat all others with dignity and respect, consistent with the core values that already exist within each Service. For the U.S. military, these are not new concepts, given the wide variety of views, races, and religions that already exist within the force.

131

Leadership, Training, and Education
First and foremost, successful implementation of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell requires strong leadership, a clear message, and proactive training and education. Throughout our engagements with the force, we heard from general and ﬂag ofﬁcers and senior enlisted leaders in all the Services, including those strongly opposed to changing the law and policy, words to the effect of “If the law changes, we can do this; just give us the tools to communicate a clear message.” Further, leaders must demonstrate to Service members that they are committed to implementing this change, and that the leaders expect Service members to adapt as well. Messages like the one from the Commandant of the Marine Corps, that if repeal comes the Marines will “get in step and do it smartly,”344 must continue. Accordingly, the Working Group has developed training and education guidance in the event of repeal. This includes speciﬁc recommendations for training in the deployed environment. This training and education guidance is contained in the Support Plan for Implementation, provided as a companion document to our report. In the Support Plan, we set forth what we believe is the key implementation message for repeal:
Leadership. The clear message from the Working Group’s assessment is “leadership matters most.” Leaders at all levels of the chain of command set the example for members in the unit and must be fully committed to DoD policy to sustain unit effectiveness, readiness, and cohesion. Professionalism. Leaders must emphasize Service members’ fundamental professional obligations and the oath to support and defend the Constitution that is at the core of their military service. In the profession of arms, adherence to military policy and standards of conduct is essential to unit effectiveness, readiness, and cohesion. Respect. Unit strength depends on the strength of each member. We achieve that strength by treating each member with respect.

In our view, the starting point for this message should be a written communication from the leaders of the Department of Defense, to include the Secretary of Defense and the senior military leaders of each Service, that deliver their expectations in clear and forceful terms.

Standards of Conduct
Throughout our engagement of the force we heard Service members express concerns, in the event of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, about standards of conduct. Most often, those concerns centered on a potential for unprofessional relationships between Service members, public displays of affection, dress and appearance, and acts of violence, harassment, or disrespect between homosexual and heterosexual Service members. In light of these concerns, we considered whether the Department of Defense should issue revised or additional standards of conduct in the event of repeal. The military is a highly regulated environment. Service core values, customs, courtesies, and traditions deﬁne acceptable behavior. Overall, the purposes of standards of conduct are to promote good order and discipline, prohibit behavior that would bring discredit on the Military Services, and promote the customs, traditions, and decorum of the military and of individual Services. Among many other things, military standards of conduct prescribe appropriate attire and personal appearance, prohibit unprofessional relationships, address various forms of harassment and related unprofessional behavior, and provide guidelines on public displays of affection. These standards of conduct regulate many aspects of Service members’ personal lives considered off-limits in civilian society. These regulations, policies, and orders are generally issued at the Service level, or by commanders. For example, the Air Force regulates dating, courtship, and close friendships between men and women, noting that personal relationships “become matters of ofﬁcial concern when they adversely affect or have the reasonable potential to adversely affect the Air Force by eroding morale, discipline, respect for authority, unit cohesion, or mission accomplishment.”345 The formation of such relationships between superiors and subordinates within the same chain of command or supervision is prohibited.346 Depending on the severity or impact to others, violations of standards of conduct may be addressed through administrative action (e.g., counseling or formal reprimand) or discipline under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Criminal acts—for example, assault, cruelty and maltreatment, or disrespect to a superior commissioned or non-commissioned ofﬁcer—may be addressed through non-judicial punishment or trial by court-martial.347 Rules concerning public displays of affection and proper dress and appearance, meanwhile, are largely unwritten and vary by Service and across commands within Services. For example, at present, other than in the Marine Corps there are no Service-level regulations or written policies prohibiting public displays of affection. However, public
345 Department of the Air Force, AFI 36-2909, Professional and Unprofessional Relationships, August 13, 2004, 2, para. 1. 346 AFI 36-2909, 3, para. 3.3. 347 10 U.S.C. § 815.

133

displays of affection—especially while in uniform—are informally discouraged in all the Services as a matter of individual Service culture, traditions, and decorum. We believe it is not necessary to set forth an extensive set of new or revised standards of conduct in the event of repeal. Concerns for standards in the event of repeal can be adequately addressed through training and education about how already existing standards of conduct continue to apply to all Service members, regardless of sexual orientation, in a post-repeal environment. We do recommend, however, that the Department of Defense issue generalized guidance to the Services that all standards of personal and professional conduct must apply uniformly without regard to sexual orientation. We also recommend that the Department of Defense instruct the Services to review their current standards of personal and professional conduct to ensure that they are neutral in terms of sexual orientation and provide adequate guidance to the extent each Service considers appropriate on unprofessional relationships, harassment, public displays of affection, and dress and appearance. Part of the education process should include a reminder to commanders about the tools they already have in hand to remedy and punish inappropriate conduct that may arise in a post-repeal environment.

Moral and Religious Concerns
In the course of our review, we heard a large number of Service members raise religious and moral objections to homosexuality or to serving alongside someone who is gay. Some feared repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell might limit their individual freedom of expression and free exercise of religion, or require them to change their personal beliefs about the morality of homosexuality. Without doubt, the views along these lines were sharply divided and deeply held, and they cannot be discounted or dismissed. Special attention should also be given to address the concerns of our community of approximately 3,000 military chaplains. Some of the most intense and sharpest divergence of views about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell exists among the chaplains. During the course of the Working Group’s engagements with the force, a number of currently-serving chaplains voiced concern that a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would constrain their ability to provide religious ministry consistent with their beliefs and customs; some chaplains also asked whether they would still be able to express opposition to homosexuality and worried that they might receive negative performance reports or adverse personnel actions for expressing such opinions. In the course of our review, we heard some chaplains condemn in the strongest possible terms homosexuality as a sin and an abomination, and inform us that they would refuse to in any way support, comfort, or assist someone they knew to be homosexual. In equally strong terms, other chaplains, including those who also believe homosexuality is a sin, informed us that “we are all sinners,” and that it is a chaplain’s duty to care for all Service members.

134

To ensure that we understood these issues, our Working Group included two military chaplains among its membership. In addition, we conducted discussion groups with chaplains, and personally consulted with the senior chaplains of each Service, as well as a number of more junior chaplains across the force. To serve as a military chaplain, an individual must receive an endorsement from a qualiﬁed religious organization; if the organization withdraws its endorsement, the individual can no longer serve as a chaplain. The Working Group also contacted the approximately 200 ecclesiastical endorsing agencies that endorse military chaplains, to gauge the likelihood of continued endorsement in the event of repeal. Of the approximately 200 endorsing agencies to which the Working Group wrote, 77 responded, which, in total, represented almost 70% of active duty military chaplains. Of the 77 that responded, most expressed opposition to a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, based primarily on theological objections to homosexuality. However, none stated that it would withdraw its endorsements for military chaplains if the law were repealed. A signiﬁcant portion of the respondents did suggest that a change in policies resulting in chaplains’ free exercise of religion or free speech rights being curtailed would lead them to withdraw their endorsement. In the discussion groups with chaplains, while many expressed opposition to a change in policy, nearly all indicated that they were willing to continue their ministry in the military. Only three out of approximately 145 chaplains who participated indicated they would seek to separate or retire should the law be changed. In general, we conclude three things: First, the reality is that in today’s U.S. military, Service members of sharply religious convictions and moral values—including those who believe that abortion is murder and those who do not, and those who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and those who do not—and those who have no religious convictions at all, already co-exist, work, live, and ﬁght together on a daily basis. This is a reﬂection of the pluralistic American society at large. Second, with regard to Service members concerned about their own individual expression and free exercise of religion, we conclude that no modiﬁed or revised policy is required, particularly in light of the training and education we are recommending in the event of repeal. In our view, existing policies regarding individual expression and free exercise of religion by Service members are adequate. Service members will not be required to change their personal views and religious beliefs; they must, however, continue to respect and co-exist with others who may hold different views and beliefs. Third, existing DoD and Service policies and guidance pertaining to chaplains is adequate to accommodate a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. In our view, existing policies on chaplains’ protections and obligations are adequate and strike an appropriate balance between protecting a chaplain’s First Amendment freedoms and a chaplain’s duty to care

135

for all. Existing Army and Air Force regulations state that chaplains “will not be required to perform a religious role...in worship services, command ceremonies, or other events, if doing so would be in variance with the tenets or practices of their faith.”348 At the same time, according to Navy regulations, “chaplains care for all Service members, including those who claim no religious faith, facilitate the religious requirements of personnel of all faiths, provide faith-speciﬁc ministries, and advise the command.”349 Overall, it is DoD policy that chaplains “serve a religiously diverse population,”350 and, to be considered for appointment as a chaplain, an individual must be “willing to support directly and indirectly the free exercise of religion by all members of the Military Services, their family members, and other persons authorized to be served by the military chaplaincies.”351 However, in recognition of the concerns expressed by chaplains and their endorsing agencies, the Department of Defense should, in the event of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, direct the Services to reiterate the principle that chaplains, in the context of their religious ministry, are not required to take actions inconsistent with their religious beliefs, but must still care for all Service members. Evaluation, promotion, and assignment of chaplains must continue to be consistent with these long-standing Service policies.

Equal Opportunity
We recommend that, in a post-repeal environment, gay and lesbian Service members be treated under the same general principles of military equal opportunity policy that applies to all Service members. Under the Military Equal Opportunity program, it is DoD policy to, “promote an environment free from personal, social, or institutional barriers that prevent Service members from rising to the highest level of responsibility possible. Service members shall be evaluated only on individual merit, ﬁtness, and capability.”352 Hand-in-hand with military equal opportunity are Service-level policies on diversity, inclusion, and respect. These are consistent with and support basic military values of treating every military member with dignity and respect. For instance, among the facets of the Air Force Diversity Policy is to “educate and train all personnel on the importance of diversity, including mutual respect, thus promoting an Air Force culture that values inclusion of all personnel in the Total Force….”353 The DoD Human Goals Charter, last issued in 1998, states that the Department of Defense strives “to create an environment that values diversity and fosters mutual respect and cooperation among all persons.”354 That same year, the Secretary of Defense William Cohen issued a memorandum in which he stated: “I will not tolerate illegal discrimination against or harassment of any DoD personnel. I expect all commanders,
348 349 350 351 352 353 354 AR 165-1, 12, para. 3-2.b(6); Department of the Air Force, AFI 52-101, Planning and Organizing, May 10, 2005, updated March 14, 2008, 2, para 2.1. SECNAVINST 1730.7D, 5, para. 5.e.(3). Department of Defense, DoDD 1304.19, Appointment of Chaplains for the Military Departments, June 11, 2004, 2, para. 4.2. Department of Defense, DoDD 1304.28, Guidance for the Appointment of Chaplains for the Military Departments, June 11, 2004, 3, para. 6.1.2. DoDD 1350.2, 2, para. 4.2; DoDD 1020.2, 4, paras. 3.d., 4.e.(1). Department of the Air Force, AFPD 36-70, Diversity, October 13, 2010, 2, para. 2.2.2. “Text of the DoD Human Goals Charter,” U.S. Department of Defense, accessed November 21, 2010, http://www.defense.gov/ news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43191.

136

executives, managers, and supervisors to work continuously toward establishing a climate of respect and fairness for all DoD personnel.”355 Under the Military Equal Opportunity program, there is also a reference to “unlawful discrimination,” which is deﬁned with reference to ﬁve speciﬁed classes: race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The DoD Military Equal Opportunity directive states, “Unlawful discrimination against persons or groups based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin is contrary to good order and discipline and is counterproductive to combat readiness and mission accomplishment. Unlawful discrimination shall not be condoned.”356 Complaints of unlawful discrimination on these bases, as well as of sexual harassment, may be handled through the resources of the Military Equal Opportunity program, or through the chain of command. These ﬁve identiﬁed classes—race, color, religion, sex, and national origin—are also the focus of diversity programs and initiatives and are tracked as an identiﬁer in Service personnel systems based on initial and periodic inquiries of Service members. Meanwhile, there are other prohibited practices contrary to Military Equal Opportunity policy that do not involve “unlawful discrimination” against one of the ﬁve groups identiﬁed above, or sexual harassment; those prohibited practices are addressed principally through the chain of command, and not through the resources of the Military Equal Opportunity Program. As stated before, we believe that, to maximize the opportunities for a smooth and successful repeal, perceived “equal treatment” of all Service members is key. Throughout the force, rightly or wrongly, we heard both subtle and overt resentment toward “protected groups” of people and the possibility that gay men and lesbians could, with repeal, suddenly be elevated to a special status. For example, a common question was whether, if the law were repealed, there would be afﬁrmative action to recruit gay men and lesbians? While much of this sentiment is based on misperceptions about equal opportunity policy, we believe that, in a new environment in which gay and lesbian Service members can be open about their orientation, they will be accepted more readily if the military community understands that they are simply being permitted equal footing with everyone else, pursuant to general principles of military equal opportunity applicable to all Service members. This is consistent with the views and aspirations we heard from current and former gay and lesbian Service members: that they are not seeking special treatment, just asking the Department of Defense to “take [the] knife out of my back,” as one gay Service member put it.357 Therefore, in the event of repeal, we do not recommend that the Department of Defense place sexual orientation alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin as a class eligible for various diversity programs, tracking initiatives, and the Military Equal Opportunity program complaint resolution processes. Instead, the Department of Defense
355 Secretary of Defense, Memorandum, “Equal Opportunity for Military and Civilian Personnel of the Department of Defense,” October 14, 1998. 356 DoDD 1350.2, 2, para. 4.2. 357 Service member, Conﬁdential Communication Mechanism, 2010.

137

should make clear that sexual orientation may not, in and of itself, be a factor in accession, promotion, or other personnel decision-making. Gay and lesbian Service members, like all Service members, would be evaluated only on individual merit, ﬁtness, and capability. Likewise, the Department of Defense should make clear that harassment or abuse based on sexual orientation is unacceptable and that all Service members are to treat one another with dignity and respect regardless of sexual orientation. Complaints regarding discrimination, harassment, or abuse based on sexual orientation would be dealt with through existing mechanisms available for complaints not involving race, color, sex, religion, or national origin—namely, the chain of command, the Inspector General, and other means as may be determined by the Services.

Collection and Retention of Sexual Orientation Data
As a related matter, we considered whether the Department of Defense should proactively collect and maintain data on Service members’ sexual orientation. Under current policy, Service members are not asked to reveal their sexual orientation, and data regarding Service members’ sexual orientation are not tracked (though discharge documents for Service members separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell may indicate that the basis was homosexual conduct). We recommend against creating a data category for Service member sexual orientation; in the event Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, we recommend that the Department of Defense continue the practice of not asking Service members or recruits to identify their sexual orientation. This recommendation is consistent with the policy of other Federal agencies, and with the DoD’s own policy for civilian employees. We would not, however, preclude the Department of Defense or the Services from continuing current policy, to collect and maintain other information that incidentally implicates sexual orientation, for example, where a gay or lesbian Service member lists a same-sex partner as a beneﬁciary for certain beneﬁts, or as a person to be notiﬁed upon injury or death. (The issue of beneﬁts is discussed in greater detail later in this section.) In the event such information is collected, it is protected from routine disclosure by Federal law and implementing DoD policy.358 Also, we would not preclude voluntary, anonymous, and conﬁdential surveys, such as for purposes of legitimate data analysis or as a follow-up to this assessment.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice
Next, we recommend modiﬁcation to the prohibition on sodomy in Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),359 and a corresponding change to the Manual for Courts-Martial (which implements the UCMJ and provides rules, policies, and, procedures for UCMJ prosecutions).

Article 125 of the UCMJ treats all acts of sodomy, heterosexual, homosexual, consensual, or otherwise, as punishable conduct. In Lawrence v. Texas,360 the Supreme Court held that private consensual sodomy between adults cannot be considered a crime. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reached a similar conclusion in the military context in the case United States v. Marcum.361 In light of these decisions, we recommend that Article 125 be repealed or amended to the extent it prohibits consensual sodomy between adults, regardless of sexual orientation. The other prohibitions considered punishable under Article 125, including forcible sodomy, sodomy with minors and sodomy that is demonstrated to be “service discrediting” (e.g., in public or between a superior and subordinate), should remain on the books. The DoD Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, which consists of military lawyers from each Service, is responsible for conducting an annual review of the Manual for Courts-Martial and recommends changes to both the UCMJ and the Manual. The Joint Services Committee has already developed a legislative proposal along the lines outlined above, in light of Lawrence and Marcum, and we endorse that proposal. In essence, the Joint Service Committee has proposed the following action by Congress: repeal of Article 125 in its entirety, and amend Article 120 of the UCMJ362 to include forcible sodomy and sodomy offenses against children. The Joint Service Committee also proposes to rewrite the Manual for Courts-Martial so as to make clear that all other aspects of the repealed Article 125 not barred by Lawrence and Marcum may be prosecuted under Article 134 of the UCMJ,363 which generally prohibits all misconduct that is prejudicial to good order and discipline or is Service discrediting. In addition and in general, we recommend that the Joint Service Committee review all other UCMJ offenses involving sexual conduct or inappropriate relationships to ensure sexual orientation-neutral application of the UCMJ in a post-repeal environment, consistent with the recommendations of this report. For example, as applied in courts-martial, the deﬁnition of “sexual intercourse” means only intercourse between a man and a woman.364 Several offenses speciﬁed in the Manual for Courts-Martial under Article 134 of the UCMJ— namely Adultery, Prostitution, and Patronizing a Prostitute—all have “sexual intercourse” as a required element of the offense.365 As a result, homosexual sex is not covered under these offenses, such that if a married woman had sex with a man who was not her husband, it could qualify as adultery under military law, but if she had sex with a woman, it would not. We recommend that the Joint Service Committee determine how to revise these offenses to apply to both homosexual and heterosexual sex.

Privacy and Cohabitation
Throughout our engagements with the force, we heard a number of Service members express discomfort about sharing bathroom facilities or living quarters with someone they know to be gay or lesbian. In connection with this issue, we note that 38% of survey respondents state that they have already shared a room, berth, or ﬁeld tent with another Service member they believe to be homosexual;366 50% believe they have already shared bathrooms with open bay showers that were also used by a Service member they believe to be homosexual.367 Housing policy for the U.S. military is established through a combination of DoD and Service-level regulations; in general the Department of Defense requires Service members without dependents, in pay grades E-6 and below, to live in barracks or dormitories. These Service members, with command approval, may live off-base. Overall, approximately 24% of the active duty force resides in barracks, dorms or onboard ship.368 This percentage varies from Service to Service: in the Air Force, the percentage is only 17%, while in the Marine Corps it is 39%.369 In general, DoD regulations also provide that Service members in barracks or dorms have a private bedroom and a bathroom shared by no more than one other person.370 However, there are variances to this standard, most notably the Marine Corps, the Navy, at Service academies, and in training environments. For instance, in the Marine Corps personnel E-3 and below share a bedroom in the interest of unit cohesion.371 Navy shipboard requirements provide that both ofﬁcers and enlisted personnel occupy shared staterooms or berthing areas divided by pay grade and gender.372 The Services require gender segregation in housing and berthing.373 We do not recommend segregated housing for gay or lesbian Service members. We believe this would do more harm than good for unit cohesion, create a climate of stigmatization and isolation, and be impossible to enforce or administer unless Service members are required to disclose their sexual orientation. On the other hand, we are sensitive to concerns expressed to us by commanders that disputes may arise between gay and straight Service members assigned to live together involving, at least to some extent, sexual orientation. Commanders should have the ﬂexibility, on a case-by-case basis, to addresses those concerns in the interests of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline.

Accordingly, we recommend that the Department of Defense expressly prohibit berthing or billeting assignments based on sexual orientation, except that commanders should retain the authority to alter berthing or billeting assignments on an individualized, case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, and consistent with performance of mission. Next, a frequent concern expressed by some Service members was personal privacy in settings where they may be partially or fully unclothed in the presence of another Service member they know to be gay or lesbian—for instance, shared showering facilities or locker rooms. Likewise, military mission or training requirements may require that Service members live and work under conditions that offer limited personal privacy. Many ask whether repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will require a third and possibly a fourth set of separate bathroom facilities. Meanwhile, others regard the very suggestion as offensive. Service members consistently raised this general topic, so we are obliged to address it. Personal privacy in shared bathing situations exists to varying degrees throughout the U.S. military. The basic design standard for DoD facilities requires separate male and female showers directly adjacent to the corresponding gender’s dressing and toilet areas, and include private shower/drying stalls. In other places, such as recruit training, there are shared facilities containing open bay berthing and group showers. Navy shipboard design criteria require individual stall showers,374 while Army regulations only require separate toilet facilities for men and women, but do not establish personal privacy standards.375 Here again, we are convinced that separate bathroom facilities would do more harm than good to unit cohesion and would be impracticable to administer and enforce. Concerns about showers and bathrooms are based on a stereotype—that gay men and lesbians will behave in an inappropriate or predatory manner in these situations. As one gay former Service member told us, to ﬁt in, co-exist, and conform to social norms, gay men have learned to avoid making heterosexuals feel uncomfortable or threatened in situation such as this. The reality is that people of different sexual orientation use shower and bathroom facilities together every day in hundreds of thousands of college dorms, college and high school gyms, professional sports locker rooms, police and ﬁre stations, and athletic clubs. Accordingly, we recommend the Department of Defense expressly prohibit the designation of separate facilities based on sexual orientation, except that commanders retain the authority to adjudicate requests for accommodation of privacy concerns on an individualized, case-by-case basis in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, and consistent with performance of mission. It should also be recognized that commanders already have the tools—from counseling, to non-judicial punishment, to UCMJ prosecution—to deal with misbehavior in both living quarters and bathing situations, whether the person who engages in the misconduct is gay or straight.
374 DoN, Shipboard, 18, para. 3.4.3.4. 375 TI 800-01, 15-2, para. 2.c.

141

Beneﬁts
Next, our Terms of Reference required that we consider the issue of beneﬁts for same-sex partners and the families of gay and lesbian Service members, in the event of repeal. This issue is itself large and complex, and is part of the ongoing national, political, and legal debate concerning same-sex relationships and gay marriage. We studied the issue carefully, and no other policy recommendation came close to consuming as much time and effort. As a preliminary matter, it is important to note that, given current law, particularly the Defense of Marriage Act,376 there are a number of beneﬁts that cannot legally be extended today to gay and lesbian Service members and their same-sex partners, even those who were lawfully married in states that permit same-sex marriage. Therefore, on the issue of beneﬁts, our recommendations are these, in the event of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: 1. That the Department of Defense and the Services inform Service members about those beneﬁts that are now, under current law and regulations, already available to any person of a Service member’s choosing, which would include a same-sex partner. 2. That the Department of Defense and the Services review those beneﬁts that may, where justiﬁed from a policy, ﬁscal, and feasibility standpoint, be revised by a change in regulation to become a “member-designated” one—in other words, to give the Service member the discretion to designate whomever he or she wants as a beneﬁciary, which would include a same-sex partner. 3. That the Department of Defense and the Services not, at this time, revise their regulations to speciﬁcally add same-sex committed relationships to the deﬁnition of “dependent,” “family members,” or other similar term in those regulations, for purposes of extending beneﬁts eligibility, but that this particular issue be revisited as part of a follow-on review of the implementation of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Members of the U.S. military are eligible for and receive a wide array of beneﬁts and support resources, both for themselves and for certain members of their families. These beneﬁts include health care, on-base housing, housing allowances, family separation allowances, family support programs, and commissary and base exchange shopping privileges. Many of these beneﬁts are governed and limited in some manner by statute and/ or regulation, be it the amount of the beneﬁt, who is eligible for it, or both. In the event of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the basic question becomes whether and to what extent beneﬁts and support resources currently available only to spouses of Service members can and should also be extended to same-sex partners of Service members.

376

1 U.S.C. § 7.

142

For our analysis of the beneﬁts issue, we divided beneﬁts broadly into three categories: First, there are certain beneﬁts that, given current law, cannot legally be extended to same-sex partners. Legal limitations include, for example, the small number of jurisdictions in the United States in which gay men and lesbians are legally permitted to marry or obtain legal recognition of their relationship, the statutory deﬁnition of “dependent” in Titles 10 and 37 of the U.S. Code, and, on top of all that, the Defense of Marriage Act, which for Federal purposes deﬁnes “marriage” to mean “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and “spouse” to refer “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”377 Thus, under current law, full beneﬁt parity between spouses of heterosexual Service members and same-sex partners of gay and lesbian Service members in committed relationships is legally impossible. More speciﬁcally, many of the most signiﬁcant beneﬁts for those who are married, including eligibility for the Basic Allowance for Housing at the “with-dependent rate,” are statutorily deﬁned in a way that does not allow extension to any same-sex relationship. Criteria for the Basic Allowance for Housing—money a Service member living off-base receives to pay for housing—are set forth in 37 U.S.C. § 403. As Section 403 contemplates, the amount of the Basic Allowance for Housing is signiﬁcantly higher if the Service member has “dependents.” However, “dependent” is also deﬁned by law, in 37 U.S.C. § 401, and is limited to the Service member’s “spouse” or dependent parents, unmarried children, or certain others under the age of 23 who are placed in the legal custody of the Service member. And, as described above, the Defense of Marriage Act limits the deﬁnition of the word “spouse” to refer “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.”378 Thus, the higher “with-dependent” Basic Allowance for Housing cannot be made available to the gay or lesbian Service member under current Federal law, even if he or she is lawfully married, on the sole basis of a same-sex relationship. Likewise, military health care beneﬁts for same-sex partners are legally limited in the same way, because coverage is for “dependents” and that term is deﬁned by law, in 10 U.S.C. § 1072, with reference to “spouse.” Thus, for beneﬁts in this ﬁrst category, we simply cannot recommend that the Department of Defense extend them to same-sex couples, because it would be legally impermissible to do so. We did not, therefore, assess the ﬁscal implications of extending these types of beneﬁts. We note, however, the evolving legal landscape. On July 8, 2010, a Federal district court in Boston declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional,379 and the case is now on appeal.

The second category of beneﬁts we studied are those that are now, under current law and regulations, fully available to anyone of a Service member’s choosing, including a same-sex partner, because they are “member-designated” beneﬁts. In other words, beneﬁts like Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance and Thrift Savings Plan beneﬁciaries, missing member notiﬁcation, and hospital visitation access, are currently available to same-sex partners because the Service member has discretion to designate the beneﬁciary. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, Service members may so designate a same-sex partner without then having to conceal the nature of the relationship from the military. In the event of repeal, we recommend the Department of Defense and the Services inform Service members about these types of beneﬁts, so that they can take advantage of them for their committed same-sex partners and children, should they desire to do so. The third category of beneﬁts is more complicated, and our recommendation is consequently more complicated. In this category are beneﬁts that are not statutorily prohibited, because Congress has not explicitly limited the beneﬁt in a manner that precludes same-sex partners, but that current regulations do not extend to same-sex partners. For these, the Department of Defense and the Services have the regulatory ﬂexibility to deﬁne the eligible beneﬁciaries in way that includes same-sex partners. An example of a beneﬁt in this category is the provision of free legal services by a military legal assistance ofﬁce. At present, those legal services may be extended to “dependents,” and in this context Congress has left it to Service secretaries to determine who is a “dependent.”380 Military family housing is another prominent beneﬁt in this category. The Services, through regulation, make military family housing available to Service members who also qualify for the Basic Allowance for Housing at the “with-dependent” rate. Linking military family housing to the legal criteria for the “with-dependent” Basic Allowance for Housing is not legally required, but it has been long-standing regulatory practice.381 For beneﬁts such as these, the Department of Defense could legally direct the Services to revise their regulations to extend coverage to Service members’ same-sex partners. This could be accomplished in two ways: leave to the Service member the freedom to designate his or her “dependents,” “family members,” or similar term; or, revise these deﬁnitions to speciﬁcally mention a committed, same-sex relationship, and require some type of proof of that committed relationship. The latter is similar to the approach now being taken in Federal agencies for civilian employees.382
380 10 U.S.C. § 1044(e). 381 Department of Defense, DoD Manual 4165.63-M, DoD Housing Management, October 28, 2010. 382 In June 2010, the President issued a memorandum, followed by implementing guidance from the Ofﬁce of Personnel Management, directing Federal civilian agencies to create a new status of “domestic partner” applicable to same-sex relationships of Federal civilian employees, and to extend to domestic partners those beneﬁts that can be extended under existing law. The criteria for what constitutes a “domestic partnership” for Federal beneﬁts purposes, and how a partnership is established or dissolved, are set forth by OPM and include that the two individuals are at least 18 years of age, maintain a common residence (or would but for an assignment abroad or other relevant obstacle), and share responsibility for a signiﬁcant measure of each other’s ﬁnancial obligations. Federal agencies can, if they choose to do so, require employees to provide documentation, such as a sworn afﬁdavit, attesting that their relationship meets these criteria. (Executive Ofﬁce of the President, Presidential Memorandum - Extension of Beneﬁts to Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Federal Employees, June 2, 2010.)

144

Our recommendation is that the Department of Defense and the Services review beneﬁts in this category and assess whether they can be extended to same-sex partners in accordance with the former approach—that is, to refashion the beneﬁt to become a “member-designated” one. Where it is legally permissible to do so under current statutory deﬁnitions, and where justiﬁed by policy, ﬁscal, and feasibility considerations, DoD should redeﬁne the eligibility criteria for beneﬁts in this category to allow Service members—gay or straight—to designate a beneﬁciary of their choosing, which could be a same-sex partner. There is an element of fairness and equality to this approach, and it provides Service members with greater discretion to decide who in their life has access to beneﬁts and support services. Both homosexual and heterosexual Service members could avail themselves of this type of expanded member-designated eligibility, and the Department of Defense would be enhancing the vital role of a Service member’s “supporters”—people in a Service member’s life who may not be his or her spouse, but may be a long-time partner, boyfriend, girlfriend, parent, or friend. Obviously, this approach requires some limit on the number of people the member could designate, and it should be constrained by other policy, ﬁscal, and practical considerations. Access to legal services is a beneﬁt that may be suitable for this member-designated approach, provided there is some type of limit to the number of people the member may designate. Other beneﬁts and support services that may be suitable are, for example, programs and services provided by the Department of Defense family centers, which include mobility and deployment assistance, relocation assistance, and crisis assistance. Expanding the eligibility for these beneﬁts and programs could be achieved by modifying the deﬁnition of “family member” in DoD policy and regulations to permit Service member designation. We do not, however, recommend that military family housing be included in the beneﬁts eligible for this member-designated approach. Permitting a Service member to qualify for military family housing, simply by designating whomever he chooses as a “dependent,” is problematic. Military family housing is a limited resource and complicated to administer, and such a system would create occasions for abuse and unfairness.383 Also, we do not, at this time, recommend that the Department of Defense and the Services revise their regulations to speciﬁcally add same-sex committed relationships to the deﬁnition of “dependent,” “family member,” or other similar term, for purposes of extending beneﬁts eligibility. We realize this is different from the direction the Federal government is taking for civilian employees to address the disparity in beneﬁts available to married opposite-sex relationships and committed same-sex relationships. However, we believe that, in the short-term, immediately following a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, our recommended approach is justiﬁed in the military context, for several reasons.

383

Current Service policies state that non-dependents are not allowed to reside in military family housing. We do not recommend any changes to those policies, other than to state that any exception to policy to allow a non-dependent to reside in military family housing be administered without regard to sexual orientation.

145

First, as stated before, we believe that to create an environment in which gay and lesbian Service members can win quick and easy acceptance within the military community, repeal must be explained as an effort to achieve equal treatment for all. If, simultaneous with repeal, the Department of Defense creates a new category of unmarried dependent or family member reserved only for same-sex relationships, the Department of Defense itself would be creating a new inequity—between unmarried, committed same-sex couples and unmarried, committed opposite-sex couples. This new inequity, or the perception of it, would run counter to the military ethic of fair and equal treatment. In addition, beneﬁts play a much larger role in day-to-day military life, than in Federal civilian agencies. For the military, “beneﬁts” cover many aspects of day-to-day life, including on-base housing, housing allowances, family support programs, and commissary and base exchange shopping privileges, and provide other valuable forms of assistance, like family separations allowances, space-available travel, and relocation assistance. We know from our numerous engagements of the force that resentment at perceived inequities runs deep in military families. Finally, there is the complexity of the administration of a new system in which the personnel or another ofﬁce on a military base would have to determine whether a same-sex couple qualiﬁes as a “committed” relationship. Other Federal agencies are managing this by establishing a domestic partner status for same-sex partners, through an afﬁdavit or other evidence of the relationship.384 Within the military community, where beneﬁts are much more prominent and visible than in civilian life, administering such a system distracts from the military’s core mission and runs counter to the Secretary of Defense’s basic direction that implementation of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell be done in a way that minimizes disruption to the force. For these reasons, we recommend, for the time being, that the Department of Defense and the Services not revise their regulations to speciﬁcally add same-sex committed relationships to the deﬁnition of “dependent,” “family member,” or other similar term, for purposes of beneﬁts eligibility. However, we also recommend that the Department of Defense revisit this issue after repeal, as part of the post-repeal follow-on review we recommend below. This will permit the Department of Defense to revisit and reassess the issue as implementation of repeal is underway. It is also in recognition that the national debate on same-sex marriage and partner beneﬁts is ongoing, and that the judicial and legislative landscape is in a state of ﬂux. During the post-repeal assessment, the Department of Defense may then reconsider creating a “qualifying relationship” status for same-sex relationships, or for both committed same-sex and committed unmarried opposite-sex relationships, if the implementation of repeal to that point indicates that the extension of beneﬁts in this manner is feasible and desirable.385
384 Executive Ofﬁce of the President, Presidential Memorandum - Extension of Beneﬁts to Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Federal Employees, June 2, 2010. 385 A number of beneﬁts and support programs for current and former Service members and their families are administered through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. As such, we recommend that DoD work with the Department of Veterans Affairs on this and future action pertaining to same-sex partner beneﬁts.

146

Duty Assignments
The Working Group considered the extent to which U.S. and foreign laws and policies and international agreements may impact duty assignments for gay and lesbian personnel, and, in particular, Service members with committed same-sex partners. First, the Working Group considered overseas assignments of Service members to countries that criminalize homosexual conduct, or homosexuality in general. Gay and lesbian Service members assigned to serve in such countries may be subjected to greater legal risk than their heterosexual counterparts. To address this, we recommend that the Services ensure that information on host-country laws and related military policies regarding homosexuality and homosexual conduct are included in their standard brieﬁngs to all Service members being deployed overseas. We do not recommend imposing restrictions on overseas assignments of gay and lesbian personnel. Second, the Working Group considered issues related to duty assignments for Service members with committed same-sex partners. With regard to overseas assignments, current law limits the ability of the Department of Defense to fund and support accompanying travel for the Service member’s partner, based on the eligibility deﬁnitions for “dependents” in 37 U.S.C. § 403.386 Furthermore, even if a same-sex partner wishes to accompany a Service member to an overseas assignment at his or her own expense, in many instances the partner would not be eligible for the special host-nation legal protections that a “command sponsored” individual may receive. The United States has negotiated Status of Forces Agreements with various countries, which, among other things, set forth legal protections under the host country’s law for civilians who accompany a Service member to that country. In many instances, the terms of the agreements—which vary by country—have been written in such a way that they would not cover same-sex partners among those who receive those protections. The Department of Defense and the Services also have policies that allow for “dual-career military married couples” to apply to be assigned to the same geographic area.387 DoD instructions deﬁne these “Joint Spouse Assignments” as “[a]ssignments made expressly for allowing military members to establish a joint household with their spouses who are also military members.”388 Because the term “spouse” here can only refer to opposite-sex married couples under the Defense of Marriage Act, if the Department of Defense and the Services were to extend the co-located assignment policy to Service members in a committed same-sex relationship with another Service member, it would need to rewrite the relevant regulations to refer to same-sex partners (or some other term), instead of only “spouses.” Without such a revision, two Service members in a committed same-sex relationship would

not be able to apply for a co-located assignment and would be more likely to be assigned to different geographic locations than an opposite-sex married military couple would be. As it relates to the treatment of Service members with committed same-sex partners, the topic of duty assignments—both for overseas assignments and for co-location of dual military couples—presents many of the same issues discussed in the previous section on beneﬁts. As such, our recommendation and the reasons for it are similar. In short, we recommend that the Department of Defense and the Services not, at this time, rewrite their regulations to speciﬁcally accommodate same-sex committed relationships for purposes of duty assignments. However, gay and lesbian Service members in committed relationships— with either a civilian or a military partner—should be able to make an individualized, hardship-based request for accommodation in assignment. Additionally, to account for the differences in the treatment of same-sex partnerships and family relationships in various U.S. jurisdictions and foreign countries, the Services should make available voluntary counseling to gay and lesbian Service members on these issues.

Medical
During our engagement of the force, we heard from a number of Service members concerns about the prevalence of HIV in the military, the safety of the blood supply, and other medical issues. Thus, we considered whether the Department of Defense should issue any additional or modiﬁed medical guidance or policies in these areas. The 1993 Summary Report of the Military Working Group cited medical concerns as one of the reasons against lifting the ban on homosexual conduct in the military. Speciﬁcally, the report stated that “due to their sexual practices, active male homosexuals in the military could be expected to bring an increased incidence of sexually transmitted diseases,”389 of which HIV was the primary concern. An assessment of the impact of repeal on individual medical readiness is addressed in section XI of this report. In short, in the event of repeal, there will be no change in the safety of the blood supply and no signiﬁcant change in overall HIV prevalence. There is a possibility that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell could lead to an increase in the number of Service members who fall into the category of “men who have sex with men,” and this is the group at highest risk for HIV infection in the civilian population. However, our view is that such an increase is likely to be minimal and is not expected to impact military readiness or effectiveness. The Surgeons General of each of the military departments have drafted and signed a joint letter to the Working Group stating that:

389

Department of Defense, Summary Report of the Military Working Group, July 1, 1993, 6-7.

148

“The repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654 will not affect the medical readiness of the Armed Forces. Further, repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will not require a change to any medical policies. The Department of Defense has policies and procedures to protect the health of the force to include the prevention of diseases such as human immunodeﬁciency virus (HIV) transmission.”390 We concur with the Surgeons General and recommend no new policies or modiﬁcations to existing medical policies. We do recommend minor changes to existing education and training programs to address misinformation and misperceptions about HIV and the safety of the blood supply.

Re-Accession
Under current law and policy, Service members who have been involuntarily discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell are not eligible for reenlistment or reappointment.391 Each Service maintains procedures for reenlistment or reappointment. Generally, the fact that a Service member was separated on the basis of homosexual conduct is indicated by separation and re-entry codes provided on the Service member’s record of discharge (DD Form 214). In the event of repeal, we recommend that the Department of Defense issue guidance to the Services permitting Service members previously separated on the basis of homosexual conduct to be considered for re-entry, assuming they qualify in all other respects. Requests for re-entry by those previously separated on the basis of homosexual conduct should be evaluated according to the same criteria as other former Service members seeking re-entry, and the fact that the basis of the separation was homosexual conduct should not be considered to the detriment of the applicant. For example, those whose DD Form 214 show an honorable discharge (or an uncharacterized discharge for those separated during initial training) and a separation code reﬂecting homosexual conduct shall be considered for re-entry. The Services should not establish any special procedures or preferential treatment for those Service members. The needs of the Service will continue to determine re-entry criteria. We also considered whether the Department of Defense or the Services should adopt a policy to provide monetary compensation and/or other non-monetary redress to Service members previously separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. We recommend no change in policy. In general, the Department of Defense does not provide retroactive monetary compensation unless speciﬁcally authorized by legislation; nor does the Department of Defense provide non-monetary redress such as promotion in grade following then-validly executed separation actions.

390 391

Surgeons General of the Military Departments, Memorandum to the CRWG Co-Chairs, “Medical Impact of the Repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654 (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy).” 10 U.S.C. § 654(c)(1).

149

This recommendation would not preclude a Service member previously separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell or for any other reason from petitioning for redress through the Service Boards for the Correction of Military Records or Service Discharge Review Boards under the procedures and standards set forth by statute.392 The types of redress available at these boards can be either monetary (e.g., retroactive payments for periods of broken service, retroactive payment of full separation pay) or non-monetary (e.g., change in categorization of discharge, credit for periods of broken service).

Release from Service Commitments
Some Service members told us they would seek to be released from their service commitments if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed, based on their opposition to gay men and lesbians in the military or to homosexuality in general. We recommend against a policy allowing release from service commitments and voluntary discharge of Service members based on opposition to living or serving with gay or lesbian Service members after a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The U.S. military is an all-volunteer force, but once Service members join the Military Services, they are not guaranteed a certain legal or policy landscape for the duration of their commitment.393 At present, Service members serve alongside others of different backgrounds, beliefs, races, and religions, reﬂective of American society as a whole. This already includes gay men and lesbians, and most Service members recognize that. It would be inappropriate, unworkable, and unfair to others to adopt a policy that permits release based on an assertion of incompatibility with or intolerance for gay men and lesbians. Under existing regulations, Service members may request to be voluntarily discharged under a military department secretary’s plenary authority. The military department Secretary has the discretion whether to grant such requests, and only after determining the early separation to be in the best interest of the Service. Such discretionary discharges should only be permitted when they meet the standard of being in the best interest of the Service.

Fiscal Impact
The Working Group undertook a rough order of magnitude net annual cost estimate for repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell that factored in the implementation of our recommendations. This estimate includes costs related to the expansion of beneﬁts eligibility, minor privacy accommodations (e.g., shower curtains), and execution and administration of education and training programs for the force. It also considers savings if there is no longer a need to recruit and train replacements for some number of Service members separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell each year. The estimated cost depends to a signiﬁcant degree on which beneﬁts and support resources are refashioned to have a “member-designated” eligibility, consistent with our
392 10 U.S.C. § 1552; 10 U.S.C. § 1553. 393 Service members sign a DD Form 4/1 upon entry acknowledging that laws and regulations governing military personnel may change without notice.

150

recommendation above. The decision of which beneﬁts to extend would be made at later time by the Department of Defense and the Services, and a more complete cost estimate is not possible until such decisions are made. To obtain a preliminary cost estimate, the Working Group assumed a set of readiness-enhancing support resources that would be extended in this fashion. Based on this assumption, the Working Group estimated the annual cost of changing these beneﬁts to a member-designated system for all Service members, regardless of sexual orientation, to be $40-$50 million. These beneﬁts costs constituted approximately 80% of the total estimated annual cost of $50-$60 million. The Working Group estimated approximately $20 million in cost savings, for a total net annual cost estimate of $30–$40 million. We also recognize that, should future decisions provide the partners of gay and lesbian Service members with beneﬁts more consistent with those received by spouses of married Service members, personnel costs would rise. They would also rise if recruitment and retention issues become evident; however, at this time, the Working Group expects recruiting and retention expenses related to repeal to be negligible. Because of the uncertain nature of these future decisions and certain external conditions, this area will require further analysis by the Services in the event of repeal and should be included in the follow-on review recommended below.

Follow-On Review
Finally, we recommend that one year after any repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell takes effect, the Department of Defense conduct a follow-on review to monitor and assess effectiveness of implementation of repeal and to determine the adequacy of the recommended actions that are adopted.

All respondents were asked the following question, but given Service speciﬁc options for the answer:

Question 1. Which one of the following best describes your current military occupational specialties?
Army
Combat Arms (CA /MFE ) Combat Support (CS/OS ) Combat Service Support (CSS/FS, IS) M e d i c a l , J AG , C h a p l a i n s , A c q u i s i t i o n Other

Question 11. During the last 24 months, where have you lived the most?
N
In a temporary facility while on d e p l oy m e n t (e.g., tent , t r a i l e r) Onboard a ship or submarine Barracks or dormitory at a military facility Military family housing Rented or ow n e d c i v i l i a n housing Other

Question 25. In the last 2 months, about how often has your immediate unit socialized together, off-duty?
N
Not at all in the last 2 months Once Two o r t h r e e times Four or more times 3 4 ,191 32 , 5 3 4 3 5 , 873 11, 9 81

Overall
30.5 % 25.8 % 30.8 % 12 . 8 %

Army
33.3 % 25 . 4 % 28 . 9 % 12 . 4 %

Marine Corps
21. 2 % 23 . 8 % 37. 4 % 17. 6 %

Navy
2 9 .7 % 26 . 4 % 31. 2 % 12 . 8 %

Air Force
30.0 % 27. 2 % 31. 5 % 11. 3 %

Coast Guard
24 . 2 % 26 . 8 % 33.0 % 16 . 0 %

174

The following question was only asked of respondents that said they were “Now married”:

Question 34. Do you currently serve with a male or female Service member you believe to be homosexual?
N
Ye s No 35,506 79 ,128

Overall
36.0 % 64.0 %

Army
37. 6 % 62 . 4 %

Marine Corps
24 . 9 % 75 .1%

Navy
46.0 % 54.0 %

Air Force
30.6 % 69.4%

Coast Guard
29.9 % 70 .1%

Question 35. In your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a leader you believed to be homosexual?
N
Ye s No 43,089 71, 5 0 6

Overall
38.5% 61. 5 %

Army
40.4% 59 . 6 %

Marine Corps
30.8 % 69.2 %

Navy
44.3 % 5 5 .7 %

Air Force
33.4% 66.6 %

Coast Guard
40.9 % 59 .1%

Question 36. In your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a coworker you believed to be homosexual?
N
Ye s No 78 ,74 9 35,840

Overall
69.3 % 3 0 .7 %

Army
68.9 % 31.1%

Marine Corps
58.2 % 41. 8 %

Navy
78 . 6 % 21. 4 %

Air Force
67. 9 % 32 .1%

Coast Guard
72 . 0 % 28 . 0 %

Question 37. In your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a subordinate you believed to be homosexual?
N
Ye s No 60,040 54,653

Overall
4 9 .1% 50.9 %

Army
51. 0 % 49.0 %

Marine Corps
43.4% 56.6 %

Navy
62 . 8 % 37. 2 %

Air Force
37. 6 % 62 . 4 %

Coast Guard
46.8 % 53.2%

180

The following question was only asked to respondents who said they served with a leader they believed to be gay or lesbian:

Question 38. In the unit where you had a leader you believed to be gay or lesbian, about how many other unit members also believed the leader to be gay or lesbian?
N
All or most Some A few None D o n ’ t k n ow 19 ,773 11, 0 62 5 , 0 91 1, 0 5 0 6 , 0 31

Overall
47. 5 % 24 . 8 % 12 . 8 % 2.6 % 12 . 2 %

Army
47. 9 % 25 . 5 % 12 . 9 % 2.5% 11.1%

Marine Corps
4 0 .7 % 26 . 0 % 16 . 0 % 3 .7 % 13 . 5 %

Navy
50.8 % 22 . 2 % 12 . 5 % 2.8 % 11. 6 %

Air Force
45.9 % 25 . 2 % 11.7 % 2.4% 14 . 8 %

Coast Guard
4 8 .1% 23 . 8 % 12 . 6 % 2.2% 13 . 2 %

The following questions were only asked to respondents who said they served with a leader they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few other unit members believed the leader to be gay or lesbian:

Question 40. Among all the factors that affect how well a unit works together, how much did the unit members’ belief that this leader was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s ability to work together?
N
A lot Some A little Not at all No basis to judge 2 , 9 47 6 , 2 07 5 , 9 51 18 , 2 0 8 2,588

Overall
9.2 % 16 . 6 % 16 . 4 % 50.5 % 7. 2 %

Army
10 . 4 % 17. 3 % 16 . 5 % 49.0 % 6.8 %

Marine Corps
15 . 9 % 20 .7 % 19 . 5 % 36.6 % 7. 4 %

Navy
6.6 % 15 . 3 % 15 . 9 % 5 4 .7 % 7. 6 %

Air Force
6.2% 14 . 6 % 15 . 3 % 55.9 % 8 .1%

Coast Guard
6.3 % 15 . 0 % 15 . 9 % 55.4% 7. 4 %

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some or a little to the previous question:

The following question was only asked to respondents who said they served with a leader they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few other unit members believed the leader to be gay or lesbian:

Question 42. Among all the factors that affect a unit’s morale, how much did the unit members’ belief that this leader was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s morale?
N
A lot Some A little Not at all No basis to judge 2 , 62 5 5 , 5 81 6,064 19 , 0 87 2 , 52 9

Overall
8 .1% 14 . 9 % 16 . 4 % 53.5% 7.1%

Army
9.3 % 15 . 6 % 16 .7 % 51. 8 % 6 .7 %

Marine Corps
13 . 0 % 20 . 3 % 19 . 5 % 38.6 % 8.6 %

Navy
5 .7 % 13 . 3 % 15 . 5 % 58.3 % 7. 2 %

Air Force
5.5% 12 .7 % 15 . 5 % 5 8 .7 % 7.7 %

Coast Guard
4.8 % 12 . 6 % 15 . 6 % 59 . 9 % 7. 2 %

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some or a little to the previous question:

The following question was only asked to respondents who said they served with a leader they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few other unit members believed the leader to be gay or lesbian:

Question 44. Among all the factors that affect a unit’s morale, how much did the unit members’ belief that this leader was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s performance?
N
A lot Some A little Not at all No basis to judge 2,066 4 , 8 87 5 ,14 5 21,119 2,599

Overall
6.4% 13 . 2 % 14 . 3 % 58.6 % 7. 4 %

Army
7. 4 % 13 . 9 % 14 . 5 % 57. 0 % 7. 2 %

Marine Corps
10 . 4 % 18 . 2 % 18 . 5 % 4 4 .1% 8.8 %

Navy
4 .7 % 11. 6 % 13 . 4 % 63.2% 7.1%

Air Force
4.3 % 11. 2 % 12 . 9 % 6 3 .7 % 7. 9 %

Coast Guard
3.8 % 11. 0 % 13 . 5 % 64.2% 7. 6 %

The following question was only asked to respondents who said they served with a leader they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few other unit members believed the leader to be gay or lesbian:

The following questions were only asked to respondents who said they served with a coworker they believed to be gay or lesbian:

Question 46. In the unit where you had a coworker you believed to be gay or lesbian, about how many other unit members also believed the coworker to be gay or lesbian?
N
All or most Some A few None Don’t k n ow 3 8 ,770 2 0 , 271 9 , 3 57 1,162 9,060

Overall
5 3 .1% 23 . 8 % 12 . 2 % 1. 6 % 9.4%

Army
53.3 % 23 . 9 % 12 . 6 % 1. 5 % 8 .7 %

Marine Corps
48.2% 25 . 5 % 13 . 8 % 2.6 % 9.9 %

Navy
57. 5 % 21. 2 % 11.1% 1. 4 % 8.8 %

Air Force
51.1% 25 . 0 % 11. 5 % 1. 5 % 11. 0 %

Coast Guard
49.0 % 25 . 3 % 12 . 3 % 1. 6 % 11.7 %

The following questions were only asked to respondents who said they served with a coworker they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few other unit members believed the coworker to be gay or lesbian:

Question 48. Among all the factors that affect how well a unit works together, how much did the unit members’ belief that this coworker was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s ability to work together?
N
A lot Some A little Not at all No basis to judge 3 , 213 8 ,176 8 , 026 2 0 , 8 42 3 , 28 8

Overall
8 .7 % 18 . 3 % 17. 8 % 47. 5 % 7. 6 %

Army
10 . 0 % 19 . 2 % 18 . 2 % 4 5 .1% 7. 4 %

Marine Corps
13 . 2 % 25 . 2 % 20 .1% 33.4% 8 .1%

Navy
6.8 % 15 .1% 17. 8 % 52 . 8 % 7. 6 %

Air Force
5.9 % 16 . 2 % 16 . 3 % 5 3 .7 % 7. 9 %

Coast Guard
4.9 % 15 . 4 % 17. 5 % 5 3 .7 % 8.5%

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some or a little to the previous question.

Question 49. Was the effect on the unit’s ability to work together…
N
Mostly p o s i t i ve Mostly n e g a t i ve About equally p o s i t i ve and n e g a t i ve 2,296 8,384

Overall
12 . 4 % 43.0 %

Army
12 . 3 % 44.4%

Marine Corps
10 . 2 % 4 8 .1%

Navy
14 . 4 % 37. 2 %

Air Force
12 .1% 41. 5 %

Coast Guard
16 . 3 % 35.0 %

8 ,777

44.6 %

43.3 %

41.7 %

48.4%

46.4 %

48.8 %

186

The following question was only asked to respondents who said they served with a coworker they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few other unit members believed the coworker to be gay or lesbian:

Question 50. Among all the factors that affect a unit’s morale, how much did the unit members’ belief that this coworker was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s morale?
N
A lot Some A little Not at all No basis to judge 4 , 312 10 , 6 8 8 11, 6 6 8 3 6 , 671 4,884

Overall
7. 2 % 15 . 2 % 16 . 6 % 53.8 % 7. 2 %

Army
8.3% 16 . 2 % 16 . 8 % 51.7 % 7. 0 %

Marine Corps
10 .7 % 21. 4 % 19 . 9 % 39.8 % 8.2%

Navy
5.5% 13 . 0 % 15 .7 % 59 .1% 6 .7 %

Air Force
5.2% 12 . 6 % 15 . 6 % 5 8 .7 % 7. 8 %

Coast Guard
4 .1% 12 . 6 % 15 . 8 % 60.4% 7.1%

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some or a little to the previous question.

The following question was only asked to respondents who said they served with a subordinate they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few other unit members believed the coworker to be gay or lesbian:

Question 52. Among all the factors that affect a unit’s performance, how much did the unit members’ belief that this coworker was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s performance?
N
A lot Some A little Not at all No basis to judge 3,393 9 , 5 31 10 , 427 3 9 , 626 5 , 22 9

Overall
5.9 % 13 . 8 % 14 . 8 % 57. 9 % 7.7 %

Army
6.8 % 15 .1% 15 . 0 % 5 5 .7 % 7. 3 %

Marine Corps
9.4% 18 . 5 % 19 . 8 % 43.8 % 8.5%

Navy
4.6 % 11. 5 % 13 . 4 % 6 3 .1% 7. 3 %

Air Force
4.0 % 11. 2 % 13 . 6 % 62 . 9 % 8.3%

Coast Guard
2.9 % 10 . 4 % 14 . 2 % 64.3 % 8.3%

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some or a little to the previous question.

The following questions were only asked to respondents who said they served with a subordinate they believed to be gay or lesbian:

Question 54. In the unit where you had a subordinate you believed to be gay or lesbian, about how many other unit members also believed the subordinate to be gay or lesbian?
N
All or most Some A few None D o n ’ t k n ow 2 5 , 818 16 , 0 5 5 8 ,710 1, 316 8,006

Overall
4 5 .1% 25.3 % 15 . 2 % 2 .7 % 11.7 %

Army
45.3 % 25 .7 % 15 . 4 % 2 .7 % 10 . 9 %

Marine Corps
41.1% 25 . 5 % 16 . 9 % 3.4% 13 .1%

Navy
50.0 % 23 . 2 % 13 . 0 % 2.6 % 11. 2 %

Air Force
41. 0 % 26 . 8 % 16 . 0 % 2.5% 13 .7 %

Coast Guard
41.1% 25 . 3 % 16 .7 % 2.6 % 14 . 2 %

The following questions were only asked to respondents who said they served with a subordinate they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few other unit members believed the coworker to be gay or lesbian:

Question 56. Among all the factors that affect how well a unit works together, how much did the unit members’ belief that this subordinate was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s ability to work together?
N
A lot Some A little Not at all No basis to judge 1, 3 3 3 3 , 277 3,480 8,434 1, 072

Overall
8 .1% 18 .1% 18 . 9 % 4 9 .1% 5.8 %

Army
8.8 % 19 . 2 % 18 . 3 % 48.2% 5.5%

Marine Corps
12 . 2 % 24 . 3 % 23 .1% 33.9 % 6.5%

Navy
6.8 % 15 .1% 18 .7 % 5 3 .7 % 5 .7 %

Air Force
5.0 % 14 . 0 % 18 . 3 % 56.5 % 6 .1%

Coast Guard
5.5% 15 . 9 % 20 . 5 % 51. 0 % 7.1%

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some, or a little to the previous question:

The following question was only asked to respondents who said they served with a coworker they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few other unit members believed the coworker to be gay or lesbian:

Question 58. Among all the factors that affect a unit’s morale, how much did the unit members’ belief that this subordinate was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s morale?
N
A lot Some A little Not at all No basis to judge 3,293 8 , 23 4 9 , 222 26 ,70 5 2,935

Overall
7. 5 % 15 . 5 % 17. 2 % 53.9 % 5.9 %

Army
8.6 % 16 . 2 % 17. 0 % 52 . 4 % 5.8 %

Marine Corps
11. 2 % 21. 4 % 21. 5 % 3 9 .1% 6.8 %

Navy
5.9 % 13 . 0 % 16 . 4 % 59 . 2 % 5.5%

Air Force
4 .7 % 13 . 6 % 16 . 5 % 59 . 0 % 6 .1%

Coast Guard
3.8 % 12 .7 % 16 . 4 % 61. 0 % 6.0 %

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some, or a little to the previous question:

The following question was only asked to respondents who said they served with a subordinate they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few other unit members believed the subordinate to be gay or lesbian:

Question 60. Among all the factors that affect a unit’s performance, how much did the unit members’ belief that this subordinate was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s performance?
N
A lot Some A little Not at all No basis to judge 2 ,773 7, 479 8 , 26 5 28 , 6 9 9 3 ,13 4

Overall
6.5% 14 . 3 % 15 . 6 % 57. 3 % 6.3 %

Army
7. 3 % 15 . 2 % 15 .7 % 55.6 % 6.2%

Marine Corps
10 . 2 % 19 . 0 % 20 . 0 % 43.2% 7. 5 %

Navy
5.0 % 12 . 0 % 14 . 6 % 62 . 3 % 6.0 %

Air Force
4.2% 12 . 4 % 14 . 5 % 62 . 4 % 6.4%

Coast Guard
3.5% 11. 6 % 13 . 9 % 64.3 % 6.6 %

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some, or a little to the previous question:

Question 65. Among all the factors that affect a unit’s performance in combat, how much did the belief that the Service member was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s combat performance:
N
A lot Some A little Not at all No basis to judge 1, 4 41 3,582 3 , 5 02 12 , 879 1, 279

Overall
6 .7 % 15 . 9 % 15 . 0 % 56.4 % 5.9 %

Army
6.8 % 16 . 4 % 15 . 0 % 55.8 % 5.9 %

Marine Corps
10 .1% 18 . 0 % 20 .1% 46.2 % 5.6 %

Navy
5 .7 % 14 . 2 % 13 . 8 % 59 . 5 % 6.9 %

Air Force
5.5% 14 . 5 % 13 . 5 % 61. 5 % 5.0 %

Coast Guard
5 .7 % 12 . 8 % 17. 6 % 56.8 % 7.1%

193

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some or a little to the previous question.

The following questions were asked of all respondents and used to measure unit cohesion:

Question 68a. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... How Service members in your immediate unit work together to get the job done?
N
Ve r y p o s i t i ve l y P o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y as n e g a t i ve l y N e g a t i ve l y Ve r y n e g a t i ve l y No effect 6 ,15 4 11, 8 87 3 6 , 8 22 22 , 5 4 8 11, 5 07 24 ,10 5

Overall
6.6 % 11. 8 % 32 .1% 18 .7 % 10 . 9 % 19 . 9 %

Army
7. 0 % 11. 9 % 31. 5 % 19 .7 % 12 . 2 % 17. 8 %

Marine Corps
3.9 % 8.8 % 31.1% 25 . 8 % 17. 0 % 13 . 4 %

Navy
7.7 % 14 .1% 33.5% 14 . 4 % 7.1% 23 . 2 %

Air Force
6.4% 11.1% 32 . 6 % 16 . 9 % 8.3% 24 . 8 %

Coast Guard
6.4% 12 .7 % 34.3 % 15 . 9 % 6.4% 24 . 2 %

Question 68b. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... How Service members in your immediate unit pull together to perform as a team?
N
Ve r y p o s i t i ve l y P o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y as n e g a t i ve l y N e g a t i ve l y Ve r y n e g a t i ve l y No effect 6 , 411 12 ,718 36,480 22 ,126 11, 8 9 0 23 , 3 3 4

Overall
6.9 % 12 . 5 % 31. 8 % 18 . 2 % 11. 3 % 19 . 3 %

Army
7. 3 % 12 . 6 % 31. 2 % 19 .1% 12 .7 % 17.1%

Marine Corps
4.0 % 9.2 % 30.9 % 24 . 9 % 17. 9 % 13 .1%

Navy
7. 9 % 14 . 9 % 33.0 % 13 . 9 % 7. 3 % 22 . 9 %

Air Force
6 .7 % 11.7 % 32 . 4 % 16 .7 % 8.5% 23 . 9 %

Coast Guard
6.5% 13 . 8 % 34.0 % 15 . 3 % 6.5% 23 . 8 %

197

Question 68c. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... How Service members in your immediate unit trust each other?
N
Ve r y p o s i t i ve l y P o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y as n e g a t i ve l y N e g a t i ve l y Ve r y n e g a t i ve l y No effect 6 ,123 12 , 0 0 3 35,348 23 , 5 01 14 , 6 97 21, 24 5

Overall
6.5% 11. 6 % 31. 2 % 19 . 2 % 13 . 9 % 17. 6 %

Army
6.9 % 11.7 % 30.3 % 19 . 8 % 15 .7 % 15 . 6 %

Marine Corps
3.8 % 8.0 % 29.5 % 25 .7 % 21. 6 % 11. 4 %

Navy
7. 5 % 13 .7 % 3 3 .1% 15 .7 % 9.4% 20 . 6 %

Air Force
6.3 % 11. 2 % 32 .1% 17. 9 % 10 . 3 % 22 .1%

Coast Guard
6.6 % 13 . 2 % 34.0 % 16 .1% 8.6 % 21. 5 %

Question 68d. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... How much Service members in your immediate unit care about each other?
N
Ve r y p o s i t i ve l y P o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y as n e g a t i ve l y N e g a t i ve l y Ve r y n e g a t i ve l y No effect 6 , 015 11, 8 92 38,829 21,73 3 12 ,13 6 22 , 2 01

Overall
6.5% 11. 6 % 33.6 % 18 . 2 % 11. 8 % 18 . 4 %

Army
6.9 % 11. 9 % 32 . 8 % 18 . 9 % 13 . 0 % 16 . 4 %

Marine Corps
3 .7 % 8.4% 32 . 0 % 24 . 6 % 19 .1% 12 .1%

Navy
7.1% 13 . 4 % 35.0 % 14 .7 % 8.4% 21. 3 %

Air Force
6.3 % 10 . 8 % 34.6 % 16 . 4 % 8.8 % 23 .1%

Coast Guard
6.2% 13 .1% 3 6 .7 % 14 .7 % 7. 5 % 21.7 %

198

Question 69a. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect the extent to which... Service members in your immediate unit can get help from their leaders on personal problems?
N
Ve r y p o s i t i ve l y P o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y as n e g a t i ve l y N e g a t i ve l y Ve r y n e g a t i ve l y No effect 6 , 621 13 , 4 9 0 38,049 18 ,10 6 9 ,14 9 27,197

Overall
6.9 % 13 .1% 33.5% 15 . 9 % 8.8 % 21. 9 %

Army
7.1% 13 . 3 % 33.3 % 16 . 8 % 9.6 % 19 . 9 %

Marine Corps
4.4% 10 . 9 % 33.6 % 21. 3 % 13 .7 % 16 .1%

Navy
7. 8 % 15 . 3 % 33.6 % 12 . 4 % 6.6 % 24 . 2 %

Air Force
6 .7 % 11. 8 % 34.0 % 14 . 0 % 6 .7 % 26 . 8 %

Coast Guard
7.1% 14 . 2 % 34.3 % 13 . 8 % 6.2% 24 . 4 %

Question 69b. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect the extent to which... Leaders in your immediate unit trust their unit members?
N
Ve r y p o s i t i ve l y P o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y as n e g a t i ve l y N e g a t i ve l y Ve r y n e g a t i ve l y No effect 6 ,10 4 13 , 3 01 38,448 18 , 8 8 2 9 ,13 3 26 , 622

Overall
6.4% 12 . 8 % 33.8 % 16 . 4 % 9.0 % 21.7 %

Army
6 .7 % 13 . 0 % 32 . 9 % 17. 9 % 10 .1% 19 . 4 %

Marine Corps
3 .7 % 10 .1% 34.5% 22 . 2 % 14 .1% 15 . 4 %

Navy
7. 4 % 15 .1% 34.6 % 12 . 2 % 6.4% 24 . 4 %

Air Force
6.3 % 12 . 0 % 34.5% 13 .7 % 6.5% 27. 0 %

Coast Guard
6.3 % 14 . 5 % 34.9 % 13 . 3 % 5.6 % 25 . 5 %

199

Question 69c. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect the extent to which... Leaders in your immediate unit have the skills and abilities to lead unit members into combat?
N
Ve r y p o s i t i ve l y P o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y as n e g a t i ve l y N e g a t i ve l y Ve r y n e g a t i ve l y No effect 6 , 377 12 ,75 9 3 6 , 6 61 16 , 24 5 10 , 9 9 0 29,380

Overall
6.8 % 12 . 6 % 32 .7 % 13 .7 % 10 . 2 % 24 .1%

Army
7. 3 % 13 . 2 % 32 . 4 % 14 . 3 % 10 .7 % 22 .1%

Marine Corps
4.3 % 10 . 0 % 33.3 % 17. 9 % 16 . 5 % 17. 9 %

Navy
7. 5 % 14 . 4 % 33.0 % 10 . 6 % 7. 4 % 27.1%

Air Force
6.6 % 11.1% 32 .7 % 12 . 9 % 8.4% 28 . 3 %

Coast Guard
6.0 % 12 . 3 % 32 . 8 % 11. 6 % 7. 8 % 29.6 %

Question 69d. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect the extent to which... Leaders in your immediate unit care about their Service members?
N
Ve r y p o s i t i ve l y P o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y as n e g a t i ve l y N e g a t i ve l y Ve r y n e g a t i ve l y No effect 6 ,72 0 13 ,78 3 39,804 15 , 575 8,205 28 , 214

Overall
7. 0 % 13 . 3 % 34.6 % 14 . 0 % 8.4% 22 .7 %

Army
7. 4 % 13 .7 % 33.8 % 15 . 2 % 9.3 % 20 . 6 %

Marine Corps
4.4% 10 . 3 % 35.5% 19 .7 % 13 . 8 % 16 . 3 %

Navy
7.7 % 15 . 5 % 34.6 % 10 .7 % 6.2% 25 . 3 %

Air Force
6.8 % 12 .1% 3 5 .7 % 11. 6 % 6.0 % 27. 8 %

Coast Guard
6.6 % 14 . 4 % 3 6 .1% 11. 3 % 5 .7 % 26 . 0 %

200

The following questions were asked to respondents who have never been deployed or haven’t been in combat environment since September 11, 2001:

Question 70a. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission... On a day-to-day basis?
N
Ve r y p o s i t i ve l y P o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y as n e g a t i ve l y N e g a t i ve l y Ve r y n e g a t i ve l y No effect 2,690 4,383 15 , 577 7, 013 2,940 14 , 8 81

Overall
6.9 % 10 . 5 % 32 . 6 % 14 .1% 6 .7 % 29.3 %

Army
7. 6 % 11. 2 % 32 .1% 14 . 9 % 6.8 % 27. 3 %

Marine Corps
4.6 % 8 .1% 35.3 % 20 .1% 11. 3 % 20 .7 %

Navy
7. 5 % 12 . 3 % 32 . 2 % 11.1% 5 .7 % 31. 2 %

Air Force
6.5% 9.0 % 32 . 2 % 12 . 5 % 5.5% 34.3 %

Coast Guard
5.8 % 9 .7 % 33.8 % 13 . 4 % 5.0 % 32 . 3 %

Question 70b. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission... When a crisis or negative event happens that affects your immediate unit?
N
Ve r y p o s i t i ve l y P o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y as n e g a t i ve l y N e g a t i ve l y Ve r y n e g a t i ve l y No effect 2 ,722 4 , 28 9 15 , 62 9 6 , 28 3 3 , 375 15 ,13 4

Overall
7. 0 % 10 . 2 % 32 . 8 % 12 . 4 % 7. 6 % 29.9 %

Army
7. 6 % 10 . 8 % 32 . 9 % 13 .1% 7. 8 % 27.7 %

Marine Corps
4 .7 % 8.0 % 33.8 % 18 . 4 % 13 . 2 % 21. 8 %

Navy
7. 4 % 12 . 4 % 32 . 8 % 9.2 % 6 .1% 32 .1%

Air Force
6.6 % 8.8 % 32 .1% 11. 3 % 6.4% 34.8 %

Coast Guard
5.8 % 9.5 % 34.9 % 11. 4 % 5 .1% 33.3 %

201

The following questions were asked to respondents who have been deployed at some point and been in combat environment since September 11, 2001:

Question 71a. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission... In a ﬁeld environment or out to sea?
N
Ve r y p o s i t i ve l y P o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y as n e g a t i ve l y N e g a t i ve l y Ve r y n e g a t i ve l y No effect 2 , 0 92 3 , 8 81 15 , 9 0 6 15 , 3 8 5 15 , 2 9 5 12 , 0 5 0

Overall
4 .1% 7. 3 % 25.8 % 21. 6 % 22 .7 % 18 . 6 %

Army
4 .1% 7. 8 % 25 . 5 % 21. 8 % 23 . 6 % 17. 2 %

Marine Corps
3.0 % 4.5% 22 .1% 25 . 3 % 3 4 .1% 11. 0 %

Navy
4 .7 % 9 .1% 27. 6 % 18 . 6 % 16 .7 % 23 . 3 %

Air Force
4 .1% 5.9 % 26 .7 % 21. 4 % 19 . 2 % 22 .7 %

Coast Guard
4.6 % 6.0 % 28 . 4 % 19 . 3 % 23 . 2 % 18 . 5 %

Question 71b. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission... When a crisis or negative event happens that affects your immediate unit?
N
Ve r y p o s i t i ve l y P o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y as n e g a t i ve l y N e g a t i ve l y Ve r y n e g a t i ve l y No effect 2,290 4,503 21, 5 8 6 11,131 8,489 16 , 5 8 2

Overall
4.4% 8 .1% 33.3 % 16 . 0 % 13 . 4 % 24 .7 %

Army
4.4% 8.6 % 33.0 % 16 . 6 % 14 . 6 % 22 .7 %

Marine Corps
3 .1% 5.6 % 32 . 9 % 20 . 4 % 19 . 6 % 18 . 4 %

Navy
5.0 % 9 .7 % 3 3 .7 % 13 .1% 9.2 % 29.3 %

Air Force
4.5% 7.1% 34.0 % 14 . 4 % 10 . 5 % 29.5 %

Coast Guard
4.9 % 8.3% 36.9 % 12 . 8 % 10 .7 % 26 . 4 %

202

Question 71c. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission... In an intense combat situation?
N
Ve r y p o s i t i ve l y P o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y as n e g a t i ve l y N e g a t i ve l y Ve r y n e g a t i ve l y No effect 2 , 323 4 , 231 2 0 ,14 6 9,982 10 ,73 0 17, 02 9

Overall
4.6 % 7. 8 % 31. 4 % 14 . 0 % 16 . 6 % 25.6 %

Army
4.8 % 8 .1% 31. 4 % 14 . 2 % 17. 5 % 23 . 9 %

Marine Corps
3.3% 6.0 % 30.2 % 17. 3 % 24 .1% 19 . 0 %

Navy
4.8 % 9.2 % 32 . 5 % 11. 6 % 11. 9 % 30.0 %

Air Force
4.3 % 6.6 % 31. 2 % 13 . 6 % 14 . 2 % 29.9 %

Coast Guard
4.9 % 6 .1% 33.5% 13 . 8 % 13 . 3 % 28 . 4 %

The following questions were asked of all respondents:

Question 72. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect how often your immediate unit socializes together off-duty?
N
Probably increase h ow m u c h we g e t together Probably decrease h ow m u c h we g e t together I t wo u l d probably h ave n o effect D o n ’ t k n ow

Question 75e. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... Your ability to train well?
N
Ve r y p o s i t i ve l y P o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y as negatively N e g a t i ve l y Ve r y n e g a t i ve l y No effect 2,403 3 ,78 9 23 ,191 15 ,76 0 7,12 0 59,356

Overall
3.0 % 4.3 % 20.8 % 13 . 4 % 7. 4 % 51.1%

Army
3.3% 4 .7 % 20 . 5 % 14 . 8 % 8.3% 48.3 %

Marine Corps
2.3 % 3.2% 21. 3 % 19 . 0 % 13 . 3 % 40.8 %

Navy
3 .1% 5.3 % 22 . 2 % 9.6 % 4.9 % 54.9 %

Air Force
2.4% 3 .1% 19 . 9 % 11. 0 % 4.9 % 5 8 .7 %

Coast Guard
2.6 % 4.2% 22 . 5 % 10 . 3 % 4 .1% 56.4 %

Question 75f. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... Your immediate unit’s ability to train well together?
N
Ve r y p o s i t i ve l y P o s i t i ve l y Equally as p o s i t i ve l y as n e g a t i ve l y N e g a t i ve l y Ve r y n e g a t i ve l y No effect 2,250 3 ,792 27, 23 0 2 5 ,132 10 ,73 5 42 , 3 8 8

Overall
2 .7 % 4.3 % 24 . 5 % 20.8 % 10 . 5 % 37.1%

Army
3.0 % 4.8 % 24 . 2 % 22 . 2 % 11. 8 % 3 4 .1%

Marine Corps
2.0 % 3.2% 23 . 4 % 28 . 9 % 18 .1% 24 . 5 %

Navy
3.0 % 5.3 % 26 . 2 % 15 . 8 % 7. 0 % 42 .7 %

Air Force
2.3 % 3.2% 24 . 4 % 18 . 3 % 7. 4 % 44.5%

Coast Guard
2.5% 4.3 % 26 . 0 % 16 . 9 % 5.8 % 44.5%

207

The following question was only asked to individuals that said they were “Now married”:

Question 81. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how, if at all, will your military career plans be affected?
N
I will stay longer than I had planned I will think about staying longer than I had planned I will think about leaving sooner than I had planned I will leave sooner than I had planned My militar y c areer plans would not change D o n ’ t k n ow

Overall

Army

Marine Corps
0 .7 %

Navy

Air Force
1. 2 %

Coast Guard
1.7 %

1, 422

1.7 %

1. 9 %

2.2%

1, 5 0 0

1. 8 %

2.0 %

1. 5 %

2.2%

1. 4 %

1. 5 %

12 , 6 9 8

11.1%

11. 8 %

15 . 0 %

8.6 %

9.9 %

9 .1%

12 ,126

12 . 6 %

14 . 2 %

23 .1%

7. 9 %

8.2%

6.2%

73 , 210 10 , 6 9 0

62 . 3 % 10 . 5 %

60.2 % 9.8 %

47. 5 % 12 . 2 %

68.0 % 11. 2 %

69.0 % 10 . 3 %

67. 5 % 14 . 0 %

210

For this question, respondents were asked to say how repeal would impact the importance of the three factors they selected, in response to question 33, as most important to them when deciding whether to remain in the military:

Question 82a. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? Pay and allowances / Bonuses
N
More important than repeal Equally as important as repeal Less important than repeal D o n ’ t k n ow 14 , 9 8 8

Overall
54.5%

Army
54.4%

Marine Corps
44.3 %

Navy
57. 0 %

Air Force
56.8 %

Coast Guard
56.5 %

5 , 4 47

21. 4 %

21. 8 %

21. 8 %

21. 5 %

20 . 3 %

20 . 5 %

3 , 0 57 2 , 927

12 . 4 % 11.7 %

13 . 9 % 9.9 %

19 .1% 14 . 8 %

9 .1% 12 . 5 %

10 .1% 12 . 8 %

7. 8 % 15 . 3 %

Question 82b. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? Education beneﬁts
N
More important than repeal Equally as important as repeal Less important than repeal D o n ’ t k n ow 7, 28 9

Overall
51.7 %

Army
52 . 3 %

Marine Corps
43.9 %

Navy
51. 4 %

Air Force
53.9 %

Coast Guard
5 0 .7 %

3 , 215

24 . 2 %

24 . 4 %

25 . 6 %

25 . 6 %

21.7 %

25 . 4 %

1, 373 1, 9 5 4

9.9 % 14 . 2 %

10 . 8 % 12 . 4 %

12 . 0 % 18 . 4 %

7. 8 % 15 . 2 %

9 .1% 15 . 3 %

7.1% 16 . 8 %

211

Question 82c. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? Quality of leadership
N
More important than repeal Equally as important as repeal Less important than repeal D o n ’ t k n ow 10 , 570

Overall
52 . 4 %

Army
53.2%

Marine Corps
46.4 %

Navy
53.3 %

Air Force
5 3 .7 %

Coast Guard
52 . 8 %

4,553

23 . 6 %

23 .7 %

23 .1%

23 . 3 %

23 . 8 %

24 . 4 %

2 , 213 2 , 077

11. 9 % 12 .1%

12 . 2 % 10 . 9 %

16 . 3 % 14 . 2 %

9.2 % 14 . 2 %

9.8 % 12 .7 %

8.9 % 13 . 8 %

Question 82d. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? Retirement beneﬁts
N
More important than repeal Equally as important as repeal Less important than repeal D o n ’ t k n ow 25,305

Overall
5 8 .1%

Army
5 6 .1%

Marine Corps
52 .7 %

Navy
60.4%

Air Force
61. 0 %

Coast Guard
60.0 %

8,099

20.8 %

21. 6 %

21. 5 %

20 . 3 %

19 . 6 %

20 .1%

3,493 4 , 318

9.4% 11. 8 %

11. 3 % 11. 0 %

13 . 3 % 12 . 4 %

6 .7 % 12 . 6 %

7. 4 % 12 . 0 %

5 .7 % 14 . 2 %

212

Question 82e. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? Years completed toward retirement
N
More important than repeal Equally as important as repeal Less important than repeal D o n ’ t k n ow 16 ,13 3

Overall
58.8 %

Army
57.1%

Marine Corps
53.2%

Navy
61. 8 %

Air Force
60.9 %

Coast Guard
60.6 %

4,803

19 . 9 %

20 . 8 %

19 . 6 %

18 . 8 %

19 . 0 %

18 . 9 %

2,355 2,585

10 . 3 % 11.1%

12 . 2 % 9.9 %

14 .7 % 12 . 5 %

7. 2 % 12 . 2 %

8.3% 11. 8 %

6.5% 14 . 0 %

Question 82f. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? Current economic situation and civilian job availability
N
More important than repeal Equally as important as repeal Less important than repeal D o n ’ t k n ow 14 ,176

Overall
54.8 %

Army
53.9 %

Marine Corps
47. 9 %

Navy
5 6 .7 %

Air Force
5 8 .1%

Coast Guard
54.4%

5 ,12 0

21.1%

21. 8 %

22 . 3 %

20 . 6 %

19 .7 %

22 . 6 %

2,568 2,984

11. 3 % 12 . 8 %

13 . 0 % 11. 3 %

16 . 3 % 13 . 5 %

8.3% 14 . 4 %

8 .7 % 13 . 6 %

7. 9 % 15 . 0 %

213

Question 82g. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? Family separations and stability
N
More important than repeal Equally as important as repeal Less important than repeal D o n ’ t k n ow 12 , 0 5 5

Overall
60.2 %

Army
60.9 %

Marine Corps
49.6 %

Navy
60.3 %

Air Force
64.2%

Coast Guard
59 . 9 %

3 , 52 5

19 . 6 %

19 .7 %

21. 4 %

19 . 8 %

17. 9 %

19 .7 %

1, 6 4 4 1, 8 2 5

9.0 % 11. 3 %

9.4% 9.9 %

13 . 8 % 15 . 3 %

7. 5 % 12 . 4 %

6 .7 % 11. 3 %

6.2% 14 . 2 %

Question 82h. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? Health beneﬁts
N
More important than repeal Equally as important as repeal Less important than repeal D o n ’ t k n ow 11,112

Overall
54.9 %

Army
5 5 .1%

Marine Corps
47. 5 %

Navy
54.5%

Air Force
57. 2 %

Coast Guard
5 6 .7 %

4 , 0 32

22 . 3 %

23 .1%

22 . 6 %

23 . 9 %

19 . 8 %

19 . 8 %

1,714 2 , 4 41

9.5 % 13 . 3 %

10 . 6 % 11. 2 %

13 . 5 % 16 . 4 %

6.9 % 14 . 8 %

8.5% 14 . 5 %

6.4% 17. 0 %

214

Question 82i. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? Deployment-related considerations
N
More important than repeal Equally as important as repeal Less important than repeal D o n ’ t k n ow 6,430

Overall
52 .7 %

Army
52 .7 %

Marine Corps
44.9 %

Navy
54.0 %

Air Force
56.4 %

Coast Guard
46.9 %

2,439

21. 5 %

22 .7 %

19 . 0 %

18 .7 %

21.1%

25 . 2 %

1, 477 1,18 8

13 . 8 % 12 .1%

13 . 5 % 11.1%

21. 4 % 14 . 6 %

13 .1% 14 .1%

10 .7 % 11. 8 %

10 . 4 % 17. 5 %

Question 82j. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? Live by Service’s core values
N
More important than repeal Equally as important as repeal Less important than repeal D o n ’ t k n ow 3 ,16 0

Overall
51. 3 %

Army
51. 2 %

Marine Corps
47. 5 %

Navy
53.2%

Air Force
54.0 %

Coast Guard
48.0 %

1, 3 5 3

23 . 5 %

22 . 9 %

24 . 8 %

26 .1%

21.7 %

2 9 .1%

904 6 01

14 . 3 % 11. 0 %

15 . 3 % 10 . 5 %

16 .7 % 11. 0 %

11. 9 % 8.9 %

10 . 9 % 13 . 4 %

7. 6 % 15 . 4 %

215

Question 82k. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? Service members’ moral values
N
More important than repeal Equally as important as repeal Less important than repeal D o n ’ t k n ow 3 , 3 41

Overall
4 3 .7 %

Army
44.5%

Marine Corps
36.6 %

Navy
45.4%

Air Force
4 5 .1%

Coast Guard
42 . 6 %

2 ,131

28 . 3 %

28 . 0 %

29.4 %

29.2 %

27. 4 %

28 .7 %

1, 3 3 9 771

16 . 9 % 11. 2 %

17. 9 % 9.5 %

21. 0 % 13 . 0 %

11. 3 % 14 .1%

15 . 5 % 11. 9 %

14 . 6 % 14 .1%

Question 82l. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? Camaraderie
N
More important than repeal Equally as important as repeal Less important than repeal D o n ’ t k n ow 8 , 9 61

Overall
47. 4 %

Army
47. 8 %

Marine Corps
41.1%

Navy
50.3 %

Air Force
49.0 %

Coast Guard
4 8 .1%

4,293

24 . 3 %

24 .7 %

23 . 2 %

24 . 5 %

23 . 9 %

24 . 5 %

2 , 919 2 , 073

16 . 3 % 12 . 0 %

16 . 9 % 10 . 5 %

22 . 4 % 13 . 4 %

13 . 0 % 12 . 2 %

12 . 9 % 14 . 3 %

12 . 4 % 15 . 0 %

216

Question 82m. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? To serve and defend my country
N
More important than repeal Equally as important as repeal Less important than repeal D o n ’ t k n ow 20,530

Overall
59.2 %

Army
58.6 %

Marine Corps
54.5%

Navy
61. 9 %

Air Force
61. 4 %

Coast Guard
58.2 %

6,482

2 0 .1%

20 . 6 %

19 . 8 %

19 .7 %

19 . 5 %

20 . 9 %

3 , 218 3 , 071

10 . 3 % 10 . 4 %

11. 2 % 9 .7 %

13 . 8 % 11. 9 %

8.3% 10 .1%

7. 8 % 11. 3 %

7. 5 % 13 . 4 %

Question 82n. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? Job satisfaction
N
More important than repeal Equally as important as repeal Less important than repeal D o n ’ t k n ow 2 0 , 3 32

Overall
54.4%

Army
5 4 .1%

Marine Corps
45.3 %

Navy
57.1%

Air Force
57. 2 %

Coast Guard
55.9 %

7, 4 9 8

21. 9 %

22 .7 %

22 . 8 %

20 . 8 %

20 . 5 %

21. 5 %

4 ,113 3 ,75 3

12 . 4 % 11. 4 %

13 . 2 % 10 . 0 %

18 . 5 % 13 . 4 %

9.9 % 12 . 2 %

10 . 0 % 12 . 3 %

8.4% 14 . 2 %

217

Question 82o. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? Family satisfaction with military
N
More important than repeal Equally as important as repeal Less important than repeal D o n ’ t k n ow 12 , 6 9 3

Overall
57. 6 %

Army
57.7 %

Marine Corps
49.6 %

Navy
59 . 3 %

Air Force
61. 0 %

Coast Guard
57. 2 %

4 ,15 5

20.0 %

20 . 5 %

21. 9 %

18 .1%

19 .1%

19 . 9 %

1, 9 6 9 2 , 23 4

10 . 2 % 12 . 2 %

10 . 6 % 11. 3 %

15 . 4 % 13 .1%

8.6 % 13 . 9 %

7. 6 % 12 . 3 %

8.0 % 14 . 9 %

Question 82p. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? Other
N
More important than repeal Equally as important as repeal Less important than repeal D o n ’ t k n ow 1, 5 0 4

For this question, respondents were asked to say how repeal would impact the importance of the three factors they selected, in the previous question, as most important to them being able to fulﬁll their mission in combat:

Question 84a. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these factors? Having NCOs/POs who lead by example
N
More important than before repeal As important as before repeal Less important than before repeal Would not be i m p a c t e d by repeal 13 ,13 8

Overall
37.7 %

Army
37.7 %

Marine Corps
40.3 %

Navy
37. 2 %

Air Force
36.5 %

Coast Guard
37. 4 %

9 , 010

26 . 5 %

26 . 5 %

27. 9 %

25 .7 %

25 . 9 %

27. 5 %

1, 6 8 5

6 .1%

6.4%

10 . 0 %

4.3 %

4.5%

4.3 %

9 ,79 5

2 9 .7 %

29.4 %

21.7 %

32 . 8 %

33.2%

30.9 %

Question 84b. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these factors? Having ofﬁcers who lead by example
N
More important than before repeal As important as before repeal Less important than before repeal Would not be i m p a c t e d by repeal 9 ,787

Overall
38.4%

Army
38.5%

Marine Corps
42 . 0 %

Navy
37. 6 %

Air Force
37.7 %

Coast Guard
3 6 .1%

6,834

27. 3 %

26 . 4 %

28 . 4 %

28 . 2 %

27. 6 %

28 . 9 %

1, 016

5.2%

6 .1%

7. 0 %

4.3 %

3 .7 %

3 .1%

7, 0 32

29.2 %

29.0 %

22 . 5 %

29.9 %

31. 0 %

31. 9 %

220

Question 84c. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these factors? Unit training/Individual training
N
More important than before repeal As important as before repeal Less important than before repeal Would not be i m p a c t e d by repeal 12 ,19 5

Overall
27. 6 %

Army
28 . 6 %

Marine Corps
31. 9 %

Navy
26 . 4 %

Air Force
24 . 6 %

Coast Guard
22 . 4 %

14 ,73 8

30.5 %

30.9 %

33.6 %

29.9 %

28 . 5 %

31. 4 %

1,752

4.5%

5.0 %

7.1%

3 .7 %

2.9 %

3 .7 %

17, 6 6 3

37. 3 %

35.4%

27. 4 %

40.0 %

44.0 %

42 . 6 %

Question 84d. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these factors? Length of time serving together
N
More important than before repeal As important as before repeal Less important than before repeal Would not be i m p a c t e d by repeal 1, 3 81

Overall
29.3 %

Army
29.5 %

Marine Corps
32 .1%

Navy
28 . 4 %

Air Force
26 . 5 %

Coast Guard
28 . 0 %

1, 3 8 6

2 9 .1%

28 . 9 %

27. 8 %

32 . 5 %

27. 9 %

29.5 %

371

9.5 %

9.0 %

12 . 6 %

9 .7 %

8 .7 %

6.8 %

1, 4 97

32 .1%

32 . 5 %

27. 4 %

29.3 %

36.9 %

3 5 .7 %

221

Question 84e. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these factors? Individual unit members’ technical capabilities
N
More important than before repeal As important as before repeal Less important than before repeal Would not be i m p a c t e d by repeal 4,256

Overall
22 .7 %

Army
23 . 3 %

Marine Corps
25 . 6 %

Navy
21. 8 %

Air Force
21. 5 %

Coast Guard
21. 8 %

5 , 8 24

27.7 %

28 .1%

29.4 %

26 . 9 %

27. 0 %

29.2 %

553

3.6 %

3.9 %

5.8 %

3 .7 %

2.4%

2.9 %

9 , 4 07

45.9 %

4 4 .7 %

39.2 %

47. 6 %

4 9 .1%

4 6 .1%

Question 84f. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these factors? Unit morale
N
More important than before repeal As important as before repeal Less important than before repeal Would not be i m p a c t e d by repeal 12 , 3 6 5

Overall
36.2 %

Army
37. 3 %

Marine Corps
41. 5 %

Navy
33.4%

Air Force
34.2%

Coast Guard
31. 9 %

10 , 0 9 6

29.6 %

30.2 %

29.6 %

2 9 .7 %

28 .1%

29.5 %

2,856

8.9 %

9.4%

12 . 8 %

7. 2 %

7. 6 %

8 .7 %

7, 9 4 6

25.3 %

23 .1%

16 .1%

2 9 .7 %

3 0 .1%

29.9 %

222

Question 84g. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these factors? Clear task objectives
N
More important than before repeal As important as before repeal Less important than before repeal Would not be i m p a c t e d by repeal 7, 2 57

Overall
23 . 5 %

Army
24 . 3 %

Marine Corps
25 .1%

Navy
22 . 9 %

Air Force
22 . 4 %

Coast Guard
21. 2 %

9 , 242

27. 6 %

27. 2 %

30.8 %

27.7 %

26 . 9 %

28 . 5 %

877

3.6 %

4.0 %

5.8 %

2.9 %

2.5%

3.0 %

14 , 575

45.3 %

44.5%

38.3 %

46.5 %

48.3 %

47. 4 %

Question 84h. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these factors? Trust among unit members
N
More important than before repeal As important as before repeal Less important than before repeal Would not be i m p a c t e d by repeal 22 ,721

Overall
40.8 %

Army
41. 8 %

Marine Corps
44.6 %

Navy
38.3 %

Air Force
38.9 %

Coast Guard
35.3 %

14 , 9 4 4

26 . 8 %

26 . 4 %

25 . 5 %

28 . 0 %

27. 4 %

29.2 %

4 , 210

9.0 %

9.6 %

13 . 0 %

7. 3 %

7.1%

6 .7 %

11, 913

23 . 4 %

22 . 2 %

16 . 9 %

26 . 4 %

26 . 6 %

28 . 8 %

223

Question 84i. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these factors? Unit members who get along well socially
N
More important than before repeal As important as before repeal Less important than before repeal Would not be i m p a c t e d by repeal 2 , 62 0

Overall
35.9 %

Army
36.8 %

Marine Corps
41. 3 %

Navy
32 . 5 %

Air Force
33.5%

Coast Guard
33.0 %

2 ,19 8

28 . 8 %

28 . 5 %

26 . 3 %

29.6 %

29.5 %

35.0 %

836

11. 8 %

12 .7 %

15 . 5 %

10 .1%

9.2 %

9.8 %

1, 579

23 . 6 %

22 . 0 %

17. 0 %

27. 8 %

27. 8 %

22 . 2 %

Question 84j. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these factors? Similar moral values among unit members
N
More important than before repeal As important as before repeal Less important than before repeal Would not be i m p a c t e d by repeal 4 ,72 9

Overall
46.2 %

Army
46.6 %

Marine Corps
45.5%

Navy
4 3 .7 %

Air Force
47. 5 %

Coast Guard
41. 8 %

2 ,74 5

28 . 5 %

27. 9 %

28 .1%

28 . 3 %

30.2 %

31. 6 %

1, 328

14 . 6 %

15 .1%

16 . 8 %

13 . 8 %

12 . 9 %

11. 8 %

843

10 . 8 %

10 . 5 %

9.6 %

14 . 2 %

9.5 %

14 . 8 %

224

Question 84k. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these factors? Having only heterosexual members in the unit
N
More important than before repeal As important as before repeal Less important than before repeal Would not be i m p a c t e d by repeal 2 ,76 4

Overall
6 3 .1%

Army
64.9 %

Marine Corps
59 . 5 %

Navy
62 . 2 %

Air Force
61.1%

Coast Guard
62 .1%

910

19 . 6 %

19 . 0 %

18 . 8 %

19 . 8 %

21. 8 %

20 . 8 %

636

15 . 0 %

14 . 2 %

18 . 4 %

14 .7 %

14 . 2 %

14 . 8 %

121

2.4%

1. 9 %

3.3%

3.2%

2.9 %

2.3 %

Question 84l. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these factors? Diversity among unit members
N
Moreimportant than before repeal As important as before repeal Less important than before repeal Wo u l d n o t b e i m p a c t e d by repeal 1, 0 0 4 1, 2 07 14 3

Overall
26 . 8 % 33.3 % 4.5%

Army
26 . 0 % 32 . 3 % 4.8 %

Marine Corps
26 . 4 % 30.0 % 11. 4 %

Navy
28 . 3 % 3 5 .7 % 3.0 %

Air Force
26 . 2 % 32 . 9 % 4.3 %

Coast Guard
29.9 % 33.3 % 1. 9 %

1, 26 0

35.4%

36.8 %

32 .1%

33.0 %

3 6 .7 %

34.9 %

225

Question 84m. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these factors? Having unit members who work together as a team
N
More important than before repeal As important as before repeal Less important than before repeal Would not be i m p a c t e d by repeal 21, 4 0 3

Question 89. If a wartime situation made it necessary for you to share a room, berth or ﬁeld tent with someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member, which are you most likely to do?
N
Take no action Discuss how we expect each other to behave and conduct ourselves while sharing a room, berth or field tent Talk to a chaplain, mentor, or leader about how to handle the situation Talk to a leader to see if I have other options Something else D o n ’ t k n ow 3 4 , 5 31

The following question was only asked to respondents that said they attended military social functions:

Question 93. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and a gay or lesbian Service member attended a military social function with a same-sex partner, which are you most likely to do?
N
Continue to at tend military social functions Stop bringing my s p o u s e , significant other or other family members with me to military social functions Stop attending military social functions Something else D o n ’ t k n ow

Overall

Army

Marine Corps
36.8 %

Navy

Air Force
5 3 .7 %

Coast Guard
54.0 %

41, 6 9 0

49.5 %

4 8 .1%

56.8 %

4,644

5.0 %

5.2%

5.5%

4.8 %

4.3 %

4.3 %

2 5 , 231 2,556 10 , 0 67

30.4% 3.0 % 12 .1%

32 . 5 % 3.0 % 11. 2 %

40.4% 4.0 % 13 . 3 %

23 . 0 % 2 .7 % 12 .7 %

26 . 4 % 2.8 % 12 . 9 %

24 . 8 % 2.3 % 14 . 5 %

The following question was only asked to respondents that said they attended military family programs:

Question 95. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and a gay or lesbian Service member participated in military family programs with a same-sex partner, which are you most likely to do?
N
Continue to participate in military family programs Stop bringing my f a m i l y w i t h me to military family programs Stop participating in military family programs altogether Something else D o n ’ t k n ow

Question 101. What is your race? Mark one or more races to indicate what you consider yourself to be.
N
White Black or AfricanAmerican N a t i ve American, American Indian o r A l a s k a N a t i ve Asian-American, Asian-Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Ko r e a n , Vietnamese or other Southeast Asian N a t i ve H aw a i i a n , Samoan, Guamanian, Chamorro or other Pacific Islander 8 9 , 0 92 12 , 678

Overall
78 . 0 % 17. 2 %

Army
77. 8 % 18 . 0 %

Marine Corps
81. 3 % 14 .1%

Navy
72 . 0 % 19 . 8 %

Air Force
80.3 % 15 .7 %

Coast Guard
88.5% 7. 9 %

3 ,767

4 .1%

3.8 %

4.5%

5.3 %

3.5%

4.5%

5 , 261

5.2%

4.4%

4.6 %

8.2%

5.3 %

3.5%

1, 32 0

1. 4 %

1. 2 %

1. 4 %

1. 5 %

1. 5 %

1. 9 %

Question 102. Do you have any family members, friends or acquaintances who are gay or lesbian, or whom you believe to be gay or lesbian?
N
Ye s , o n e Ye s , m o r e than one No 2 0 , 9 37 4 5 ,79 3 43,364

Overall
18 . 9 % 39.9 % 41. 2 %

Army
19 . 2 % 39.6 % 41. 2 %

Marine Corps
20 . 2 % 33.2% 46.6 %

Navy
17. 4 % 43.8 % 38.8 %

Air Force
18 . 8 % 40.5 % 40.6 %

Coast Guard
18 . 3 % 41. 2 % 40.5 %

Question 103. If you would like to share other thoughts and opinions about the impacts on you, your family, your immediate unit, or your Service if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, please use the space below.
This question was an open comment ﬁeld.

Question 6. How many times has your spouse been deployed since September 11, 2001?
N
N eve r 1 time 2 times 3 times 4 or more times 11, 2 07 12 ,13 8 9 , 3 87 4,993 5,688

Overall
21. 5 % 28 . 2 % 23 . 5 % 12 . 9 % 13 . 9 %

Army
18 . 6 % 33.8 % 27. 6 % 12 . 2 % 7. 8 %

Marine Corps
17.1% 27.7 % 26 .7 % 16 . 0 % 12 . 6 %

Navy
17. 2 % 20 . 3 % 21. 4 % 15 . 9 % 25 . 2 %

Air Force
30.0 % 24 .1% 17. 0 % 11. 4 % 17. 4 %

Coast Guard
48.6 % 14 . 4 % 8.0 % 4 .7 % 24 . 2 %

Question 7. Do you have any family members, friends or acquaintances, including coworkers, whom you believe to be gay or lesbian?
N
Ye s , o n e Ye s , m o r e than one No 5 , 23 6 27, 0 91 11,726

Overall
12 .1% 59.0 % 28 . 9 %

Army
11. 9 % 57. 5 % 30.6 %

Marine Corps
14 .1% 57.1% 28 . 9 %

Navy
11. 5 % 63.2% 25 . 3 %

Air Force
12 . 5 % 58.9 % 28 . 6 %

Coast Guard
10 . 6 % 66.5 % 22 . 9 %

Question 8. Has your spouse ever worked on a daily basis with an individual he or she believed to be a homosexual Service member?
N
Ye s No D o n ’ t K n ow 14 , 0 8 2 12 , 019 17, 916

Overall
34.8 % 26 . 4 % 38.8 %

Army
32 . 5 % 26 .7 % 40.8 %

Marine Corps
26 . 9 % 35.0 % 3 8 .1%

Navy
45.9 % 17.7 % 36.4%

Air Force
3 3 .1% 29.5 % 37. 4 %

Coast Guard
43.9 % 23 . 0 % 33.0 %

237

The following questions were asked to respondents that said that their spouse has worked on a daily basis with an individual he or she believed to be a homosexual Service member.

Question 9. How well did you know that individual? If more than one individual, please answer thinking about the Service member with whom your spouse worked most recently.
N
Ve r y we l l Well Somewhat we l l N o t we l l a t all 1, 3 31 1, 9 3 8 3 , 241 7, 513

Overall
9.9 % 14 . 8 % 23 .7 % 51.7 %

Army
10 . 5 % 14 . 9 % 24 .1% 50.5 %

Marine Corps
7. 9 % 12 . 8 % 24 . 3 % 55.0 %

Navy
9.5 % 13 . 5 % 22 . 5 % 54.5%

Air Force
9 .7 % 16 . 4 % 24 . 2 % 49.6 %

Coast Guard
9.2 % 15 . 8 % 21. 6 % 53.4%

Question 10. Compared with other Service members in the community, how much did that Service member participate in military social activities?
N
More than most other Service members in the community Less than most other Service members in the community About the same as most other Service members D o n ’ t K n ow

Overall

Army

Marine Corps
4.8 %

Navy

Air Force
7. 2 %

Coast Guard
5.4%

830

6.2%

6.3 %

5 .7 %

1, 3 4 6

9.2 %

9.5 %

10 . 8 %

7. 8 %

9.4%

9.5 %

6,338 5 , 4 97

4 5 .7 % 38.8 %

46.5 % 37. 6 %

45.5% 38.8 %

4 4 .1% 42 . 5 %

45.9 % 37. 5 %

47. 0 % 3 8 .1%

238

The following questions were asked of all eligible respondents.

Question 11. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, the military will want to prepare and assist spouses in understanding the new policy. How would you like the military to provide you with information on the new policy? MARK ALL THAT APPLY.
N
No special activities or communications would be necessary Distribute printed information to spouses about repeal Provide information about the repeal on military Web sites Have interactive chats available on line to answer questions from Service member spouses Conduct information sessions on bases and installations about repeal Provide information through military chaplains trained to work with spouses and family members on repeal Provide information through other military counselors trained to work with spouses and family members on repeal Provide information through Family Readiness Group/ Work-Life Program leaders trained to work with spouses and family members on repeal Offer courses to spouses on how to discuss repeal within their families Other 19 , 0 3 9

Question 14. Which of the following best describes your preference for your spouse’s military career intentions?
N
Remain in the military until retirement Remain in the m i l i t a r y b ey o n d present obligation, but not necessarily until retirement L e ave u p o n completion of his or her present obligation I d o n o t h ave a strong preference 30,684

Question 18. Have you ever recommended to a family member or close friend that he or she pursue service in the military?
N
Ye s
No

Overall
75 . 4 % 24 . 6 %

Army
74 .7 % 25 . 3 %

Marine Corps
71. 5 % 28 . 5 %

Navy
74 . 6 % 25 . 4 %

Air Force
78 . 2 % 21. 8 %

Coast Guard
81. 9 % 18 .1%

33,354 10 ,79 4

243

Question 19. Would a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect your willingness to recommend military service to a family member or close friend?
N
Ye s , I wo u l d b e m o r e l i ke l y to recommend military service to a family member or close friend Ye s , I wo u l d b e l e s s l i ke l y to recommend military service to a family member or close friend N o , i t wo u l d n o t a f f e c t my willingness to recommend military service to a family member or close friend D o n ’ t K n ow

Question 22. Assuming you had a choice on where to live, what are the most important factors you would consider? PLEASE MARK UP TO 3 FACTORS.
N
Cost of housing Housing condition Amount of space Quality of schools in the area Safety of the community Sense of the community in the neighborhood Presence of children in the neighborhood Commuting time to your job P r ox i m i t y t o s p o u s e ’s j o b Neighbors that I k n ow a n d t r u s t The values of the community Presence of local businesses Easy access to t h e e xc h a n g e , c o m m i s s a r y, a n d MWR facilities Other 21, 527 14 , 5 6 4 7, 415 18 , 811 22 ,18 6

Question 30. If you had concerns about the impact of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, to whom would you likely turn? MARK ALL THAT APPLY.
N
Would not need to talk to someone My spouse A family member A friend outside of your family A neighbor Key Spouse/ Senior Spouse Airmen and Family Readiness Center Military Family Life Consultants (MFLC) Other military spouses Family Readiness Group Work-Life Program Ombudsman/ Ombuds Offices Support services on the base or installation Support services in the civilian community A military chaplain Community religious leaders Someone else 13 , 370 3 0 ,13 0 11, 2 0 9 8,358 2,399 1, 373

Question 35. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. If the partner of a gay or lesbian Service member participated in a family support program, would it affect your participation?
N
Ye s , I wo u l d participate in that family support program more often Ye s , I wo u l d participate in that family support program less often N o , i t wo u l d n o t a f f e c t my participation in that family support program D o n ’ t K n ow

Overall

Army

Marine Corps

Navy

Air Force

Coast Guard

433

1.1%

1. 2 %

1. 0 %

1. 2 %

1. 0 %

0.9 %

7, 019

15 . 2 %

14 . 9 %

19 . 5 %

12 . 8 %

16 . 5 %

12 . 4 %

32 , 5 41

75 .1%

75 . 4 %

69.9 %

78 . 0 %

73 . 8 %

78 . 5 %

4,066

8.6 %

8.5%

9.6 %

8.0 %

8 .7 %

8.2%

Question 36. Please tell us if you have any other thoughts or comments about how a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would affect your family readiness. PLEASE PRINT.
This question was an open comment ﬁeld.

Question 37. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?
N
12 years or less of school, but no high school diploma, certiﬁcate, or GED High school diploma or GED Some college credit, but no degree Associate’s degree (e.g., AA, AS) Bachelor’s degree (e.g., BA, AB, BS) Master’s, professional, or doctorate degree (e.g., MA, MS, MD, JD, DVM, DDS, PhD)

Overall

Army

Marine Corps
1. 9 %

Navy

Air Force
1. 2 %

Coast Guard
0.9 %

676

2 .1%

2.6 %

2.0 %

4,563 11, 571 6 , 4 62 13 , 5 51

13 . 3 % 31. 2 % 16 .1% 25.8 %

14 . 4 % 31. 6 % 16 . 3 % 24 . 2 %

15 . 2 % 3 6 .1% 16 . 3 % 22 . 2 %

11. 9 % 31. 3 % 16 . 0 % 27. 0 %

11. 6 % 28 . 5 % 15 . 5 % 29.0 %

9.5 % 28 .7 % 16 .7 % 30.8 %

7, 242

11. 6 %

10 . 9 %

8.3%

11. 8 %

14 . 2 %

13 . 5 %

253

Question 38. What age were you on your last birthday?
N
Up to 20 years old 21 t o 2 5 years old 26 to 30 years old 31 t o 3 5 years old 36 to 40 years old 41 y e a r s old or more 62 9 5 , 26 5 8 , 078 8 , 0 31 7, 9 0 5 14 , 0 4 8

Overall
2.4% 16 . 9 % 22 . 2 % 19 .1% 16 . 0 % 23 . 4 %

Army
2.2% 15 . 6 % 22 . 0 % 18 .7 % 16 . 6 % 25 . 0 %

Marine Corps
7.1% 34.2% 24 .7 % 14 . 9 % 10 . 5 % 8.6 %

Navy
2.3 % 16 . 4 % 22 . 9 % 20 . 3 % 16 . 4 % 21.7 %

Air Force
1. 2 % 13 .7 % 20 . 9 % 20 . 4 % 16 . 5 % 27. 3 %

Coast Guard
1. 2 % 12 . 9 % 24 . 2 % 22 . 6 % 15 . 9 % 23 . 2 %

Question 39. Are you male or female?
N
Male Female 2 ,741 41, 3 67

Overall
6 .7 % 93.3 %

Army
6.6 % 93.4%

Marine Corps
1.1% 98.9 %

Navy
7. 0 % 93.0 %

Air Force
9 .1% 90.9 %

Coast Guard
4.8 % 95.2%

Question 40. Do you or your spouse have any children living at home either part-time or fulltime?
N
Ye s No 33,655 10 , 4 41

Overall
76 . 4 % 23 . 6 %

Army
78 . 3 % 21.7 %

Marine Corps
69.9 % 3 0 .1%

Navy
75 . 3 % 24 .7 %

Air Force
76 . 4 % 23 . 6 %

Coast Guard
73 . 9 % 26 .1%

254

The following questions were asked of respondents that said they had children living at home either part-time or full-time.

Question 41a. How many children do you or your spouse have, living at home either part-time or full-time, in each age group? 5 years old or younger?
N
None One Two o r t h r e e Four or more 15 , 3 8 4 11, 3 4 4 6 ,742 10 5

Overall
40.5 % 37. 2 % 22 . 0 % 0.3 %

Army
42 . 2 % 36.9 % 20 . 6 % 0.3 %

Marine Corps
24 . 4 % 47. 6 % 27. 4 % 0.6 %

Navy
3 9 .1% 37. 6 % 23 . 0 % 0.4%

Air Force
43.9 % 33.8 % 22 . 0 % 0.3 %

Coast Guard
3 8 .1% 38.4% 23 . 2 % 0.3 %

Question 41b. How many children do you or your spouse have, living at home either part-time or full-time, in each age group? 6-12 years old?
N
None One Two o r t h r e e Four or more 17, 6 0 5 9 , 8 67 5,938 171

Overall
53.0 % 29.4 % 17.1% 0.5 %

Army
51. 2 % 30.3 % 17. 9 % 0.6 %

Marine Corps
61. 8 % 24 . 3 % 13 . 6 % 0.3 %

Navy
53.4% 29.9 % 16 . 3 % 0.4%

Air Force
52 . 9 % 29.0 % 17. 6 % 0.5 %

Coast Guard
56.3 % 28 . 3 % 14 . 8 % 0.5 %

Question 41c. How many children do you or your spouse have, living at home either part-time or full-time, in each age group? 13-17 years old?
N
None One Two o r t h r e e Four or more 23 , 418 7, 32 9 2 ,76 3 53

Overall
72 . 8 % 20.0 % 7. 0 % 0.2 %

Army
71. 3 % 21. 0 % 7. 5 % 0.2 %

Marine Corps
83.2% 12 .7 % 4.0 % 0.0 %

Navy
73 . 5 % 19 . 3 % 7.1% 0 .1%

Air Force
71.7 % 21. 0 % 7.1% 0 .1%

Coast Guard
75 . 2 % 18 . 5 % 6 .1% 0.2 %

Question 41d. How many children do you or your spouse have, living at home either part-time or full-time, in each age group? 18 years old or older?
N
None One Two o r t h r e e Four or more 28 , 012 4 , 073 1, 422 44

Question 43. What is your race? PLEASE SELECT ONE OR MORE.
N
White Black or AfricanAmerican Asian N a t i ve H aw a i i a n or other Pacific Islander American Indian o r A l a s k a N a t i ve 3 6 , 912 3 , 279 2 , 2 92 626 884

Overall
81. 9 % 12 .1% 6.0 % 1. 8 % 2.6 %

Army
80.4% 14 . 9 % 4.4% 1. 6 % 2.8 %

Marine Corps
86.0 % 8.4% 5 .7 % 2 .1% 2 .7 %

Navy
77. 8 % 12 . 4 % 10 . 6 % 2.2% 2.8 %

Air Force
8 5 .7 % 8.3% 5.9 % 1.7 % 2.2%

Coast Guard
91. 0 % 4.8 % 4.2% 1. 6 % 2.6 %

Question 44. As the last question in the survey, we’d like you to tell us about any other thoughts or opinions you have – positive, negative, or neutral – about the implications on family readiness and support or other aspects of military life if the government decides to repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy. PLEASE PRINT.
This question was an open comment ﬁeld.

256

Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”